Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 13th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 250 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 248 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 246 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
As Members can see, there is a great deal of interest in this debate. The first few speeches will come in at six minutes, but if everyone else could start to think in terms of four or three minutes, that would be very helpful. I now call the Secretary of State to move the motion for Second Reading.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the first page of the Bill, the Home Secretary has made the phenomenal statement that it may not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 confers on the Government a duty to ensure that
“the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention”.
Ensuring that compatibility is not only a basic moral requirement of the Government, but a practical necessity. The Government have said that this is critical legislation, and they are therefore presenting to the House clauses that they know will probably be ruled unlawful by a court of law. Surely, Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Government want to have a fight with the courts, they should have a fight with the courts, and not waste the House’s time with this nefarious legislation.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful for the point of order. This is not something on which the Chair can adjudicate, but I am sure that it will be part of the debate, which I think we should start now.
Suella Braverman
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The British public know that border security is national security, and that illegal migration makes us all less safe. They know that the financial and social costs of uncontrolled and illegal migration are unsustainable. They know that if our borders are to mean anything, we must control who comes into this country and the terms on which they remain here. That is why stopping the boats is my top priority, it is why the Prime Minister made stopping the boats one of his five promises to the British people, and it is why, according to the opinion polls, the British people back the Government’s Bill: they back it by more than two to one.
This does not mean that, as some assert, the British people are xenophobic. Since 2015, the British people have provided refuge for nearly half a million people through global, safe and legal routes. The British people are fair, compassionate and generous. Millions of legal migrants, including my parents, have experienced this warmth at first hand. But the British people are also realistic. They know that our capacity to help people is not unlimited.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Does the Home Secretary think that the British public want to see children and pregnant women detained in immigration detention centres? I do not believe for a minute that they do, but that is what is in the Bill.
Suella Braverman
This is what the British people want to see: they want to stop people dying in the channel. That is what this is about. It is naive to suggest that it is lawful and appropriate to make this journey. People are dying, and we need to stop it. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have illegally entered the United Kingdom in small boats, 45,000 of them last year alone. They have overwhelmed our asylum system. Local authorities simply do not have the housing or the public service capacity to support everyone.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way so early in her speech. Is she personally satisfied that there is enough provision for vulnerable children in the proposals that she is presenting tonight?
Suella Braverman
I will go into this in detail, but yes, vulnerable people will be receiving appropriate safeguarding and welfare support.
The British taxpayer cannot continue to fork out £6 million a day on hotels to house illegal arrivals. Let us be honest, the vast majority of arrivals—74% in 2021—were adult males under the age of 40. The vast majority were not pregnant women or young children. All travelled through safe countries such as France in which they could and should have first claimed asylum. Many came directly from safe countries such as Albania. When we try to remove them, they turn our generous asylum laws against us to thwart removal.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that when 70 Labour MPs, including the Leader of the Opposition, signed a letter campaigning for the release of dangerous foreign criminals who we want to remove from the UK, they exposed themselves as pro-open borders and unlimited immigration and put themselves on the side of the criminal rather than on the side of the public?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend puts it very well. What we have here is naive do-gooders who would rather campaign to prevent the removal of foreign national offenders, one of whom tragically went on to kill another, than vote in favour of our measures that would have toughened up the sanctions on foreign national offenders.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make some progress.
The reality is that the system is simply unfair. It is unfair on the most vulnerable, it is unfair on those who play by the rules and it is unfair on the British people, so we must change the law and we must stop the boats. For too long, those of us voicing concerns about the effects of uncontrolled, unprecedented and illegal migration have been accused of inflammatory rhetoric, but nothing is more likely to inflame tensions than ignoring the public’s reasonable concerns about the current situation. The public are neither stupid nor bigoted. They can see at first hand the impact on their communities and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise.
Speaking of acting responsibly, I want to put something on the record. It is perfectly respectable for a child of immigrants like me to say that I am deeply grateful to live here and that immigration has been overwhelmingly good for the United Kingdom, but also to say that we have had too much of it in recent years and that uncontrolled and illegal migration is simply bad.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the last couple of years, when we have seen exponential growth in this human trafficking across the channel, the money that people can ill afford to spend on these criminals has been used to make their trade even more effective, putting yet more lives in danger?
Suella Braverman
My right hon. Friend puts it very well. We now have a sophisticated, well resourced, multibillion-pound trade of illegal people smuggling and human trafficking. It is pan-national and it needs to stop.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make progress.
Despite the reasonable concerns that we have raised on several occasions, I am, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) before me, subject to the most grotesque slurs for saying such simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration. The worst among them, poisoned by the extreme ideology of identity politics, suggests that a person’s skin colour should dictate their political views. I will not be hectored by out-of-touch lefties, or anyone for that matter. I will not be patronised on what are the appropriate views for someone of my background to hold. And I will not back down when faced with spurious accusations of bigotry, when such smears seep into the discourse of this Chamber as they did last week. Accusations that this Government’s policies, which are backed by the majority of the British people, are bigoted, xenophobic or a dog whistle to racists are irresponsible and frankly beneath the dignity of this place. Politicians of all stripes should know better, and they should choose their words carefully.
Those who cast their criticism of the Bill in moral terms ignore certain truths. First, they ignore that we have a moral duty to stop the boats. People are dying in the channel. They are taking journeys that are unsafe, unnecessary and unlawful.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will agree with the Home Secretary that we should all choose our words carefully in this debate, so what part of “carefully” does her statement about an “invasion” constitute, or the exaggeration by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) in her use of the word “exponential”?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I think in this particular case it is a matter for the individual person making the speech. I will say at the outset, though, that we are clearly dealing with a very emotive subject and I ask everybody to use temperate language rather than inflaming the situation. [Interruption.] We will leave it there.
Suella Braverman
I appreciate your instruction to all our colleagues, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The way to stop these deaths is to stop the boats. Secondly, the critics ignore the fact that our policy does in fact guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it. Our policy is profoundly and at its heart a humane attempt to break the incentive that sustains the business model of the smuggling gangs. People pay thousands of pounds to make these journeys to the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As the Secretary of State probably knows, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. Many people across the world are persecuted, discriminated against or abused physically, and have to leave their countries. Some of those, as she will know, are living in other countries, and it is taking so long to process their applications so that they can get here. She probably shares my opinion that is important that true asylum seekers get the opportunity to come here. Can she assure me and the House that those who are persecuted or discriminated against will have the opportunity to come here for asylum?
Suella Braverman
We have a proud and extensive tradition of offering refuge to hundreds of thousands of people who apply according to our system and our criteria. I am proud of the refuge and security that we have provided to people fleeing the very circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
By ensuring that people do not remain here, we are removing their incentive to make the journey in the first place. But crucially, if people are truly in need of protection, they will receive protection in Rwanda. Critics overwhelmingly fail to acknowledge that fact. Let us be clear: Rwanda is a dynamic country with a thriving economy. I have enjoyed visiting it myself, twice, and I look forward to visiting it again.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary also worried that the criminal gangs that are exploiting people in this dreadful way for great profit may also be linked to other types of serious crime and helping to finance other destabilisation?
Suella Braverman
I am afraid that my right hon. Friend raises a very worrying fact about what we are seeing. When I have spoken to police chiefs around the country, they tell me that criminality—particularly drug supply and usage—is now connected to people who came here illegally on small boats in the first place.
Thirdly, Rwanda is a fundamentally safe country, as affirmed by the High Court. It has a proud track record of helping the world’s most vulnerable, including refugees, for the United Nations.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
People who are same-sex attracted and trans people are not covered by anti-discrimination laws in Rwanda. Does the Home Secretary think that makes it a safe country for gay people and trans people?
Suella Braverman
I am sure the hon. and learned Lady has read the High Court judgment, which is an exhaustive and authoritative analysis by senior, learned judges of how our world-leading Rwanda partnership complies with international obligations, including the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. It has been deemed to be a proper, lawful partnership. I refer her to the judgment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I have to make some progress. I have taken quite a lot of interventions, I am afraid.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. I find it odd that so many Opposition Members are trying their best to trip her up on a policy that is incredibly important to every community in this country. [Interruption.] Although they try to shout me down, let me say that my Gloucester constituency is a happy, cohesive, multiracial and multi-ethnic society with a primary school that has more than 50 different nationalities. I know, because I speak to them, that most ethnic minority communities are very sensitive to getting the balance right. If we get it wrong, they will feel the backlash more than anyone else. It will not be felt by SNP MPs who do not have asylum seekers in their constituencies. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I want not just temperate language but temperate behaviour.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you advise on how we might correct the record? The perplexing and misleading statement made by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) is profoundly unhelpful in the context of this debate.
Richard Graham
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. No one in this House wishes to cause any offence. If I have done so, of course I apologise. We have two hotels full of asylum seekers in my constituency, and I would be very interested to know how many hotels full of asylum seekers there are in the constituencies of SNP Members. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I have a couple of points before we resume. Interventions are now eating into the time allotted to Back Benchers, so some simply will not get in. Points of order are doing the exact same, so I caution Members, if they are to raise points of order, to make sure they are for the Chair. [Interruption.] The answer to this point of order, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) knows, is that Members are responsible for their own contributions. If anything untoward is said, they should correct the record at the earliest opportunity, which I believe Mr Graham has done.
Suella Braverman
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He is absolutely right about Scotland where, until recently, only Glasgow was taking asylum seekers. Compared with the other nations of the United Kingdom, Scotland has taken a disproportionately low number. He is also right to talk about the risks we face as a country that is harmonious, happy with itself and cohesive. If we do not deal with this problem, we will face serious problems of community tension and challenges to community cohesion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Suella Braverman
I am going to make some progress. A lot of Members want to contribute to this debate.
The United Nations has confirmed that, globally, there are 100 million displaced people. Our critics simultaneously pretend that the United Kingdom does not have any safe and legal routes and that these routes should also be unlimited. The small boats crisis demonstrates that countless economic migrants are willing to take a chance to come here in search of a better life. How many of them do the Opposition think we have to take to stop the boats?
The Opposition have not been able to answer that question. Those arguing for open borders via unlimited safe and legal routes are, of course, entitled to do so, but they should do so honestly. They should not try to deceive the public by dressing up what is an extreme political argument in the fake garb of humanitarianism, nor should they pretend that the UK does not have safe and legal global routes. In recent years, our country-specific routes have provided refuge for 150,000 people leaving autocracy in Hong Kong, 160,000 Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s horrific war and 25,000 Afghans escaping the Taliban. Another 50,000 people have come to the UK via routes open to people from any country, including the UK resettlement scheme, which includes community sponsorship, the mandate resettlement scheme, and, crucially, the family reunion route for those with a qualifying family member in the UK.
We are proud of those safe and legal routes. When we stop the boats, we will look to expand those routes. The Bill introduces an annual cap, determined by Parliament, on the number of refugees that the UK will resettle via safe and legal routes. This will ensure an orderly system that considers local authority capacity for housing, public services and support.
The Bill enables the detention of illegal arrivals without bail or judicial review within the first 28 days of detention. We can maintain detention thereafter under current laws, so long as we have a reasonable prospect of removal. This reflects the existing common law position, consistent with article 5 of the ECHR. The Bill places a duty on the Home Secretary to remove illegal entrants and, significantly, narrows the number of challenges and appeals that can suspend removal.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:
“Anyone who arrives illegally will be deemed inadmissible and either returned to the country they arrived from or a safe third country.”
As a result, 18,000 people were considered inadmissible to the UK asylum system and just 21 people were returned. That is just 0.1%. What has changed with this Bill, and what percentage of those deemed inadmissible does the Home Secretary expect to be returned?
Suella Braverman
I have to correct the right hon. Lady on the fallacy under which she is operating. We are returning people who do not have a legal basis to be in this country. There are many ways to look at the numbers. Since the Prime Minister’s announcement, for example, we have returned 600 people to Albania. Last year alone, we returned 14,000 people. It is a fallacy to suggest that there are no returns and that we are somehow not removing people who do not have a right to be here.
Only those who are under 18, who are medically unfit to fly or who are at real risk of serious and irreversible harm will be able to delay their removal. Any other claims will be heard remotely after removal. When we passed our world-leading Modern Slavery Act 2015, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I wonder if my right hon. and learned Friend would make a point of clarification. She has implied that people will be unable to claim asylum in the UK and will be removed immediately, or potentially after 28 days’ detention. Paragraph 5.1 of our memorandum of understanding with Rwanda requires the United Kingdom to be responsible for the initial screening of asylum seekers. Will she explain what that screening will be, if not the screening of claims?
Suella Braverman
We have an extensive system of screening for everyone who arrives in the UK via a small boat. That is effectively what our Manston centre is designed for. People undergo security checks, biometric checks and any other identity checks, so we undertake an extensive screening process here.
Suella Braverman
I am sorry, but I am going to have to make some progress. When our world-leading Modern Slavery Act 2015 was passed, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year. That Act of Parliament was an important step forward in protecting vulnerable people from the abuses of human trafficking and modern slavery, and I am incredibly proud of it. But last year there were 17,000 referrals, which took on average 543 days to consider. The most referred nationality in 2022 were citizens of Albania, a safe European country, a NATO ally and a signatory of the European convention against trafficking. In 2021, 73% of people detained for removal put forward a modern slavery claim, which compares with a figure of just 3% for those not in detention. We have also seen a number of foreign national offenders who, after serving their sentences for some of the most despicable crimes, such as murder and rape, have, on the point of removal, put in a last-minute claim of modern slavery to thwart their deportation. The fact is that our modern slavery laws are being abused.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell this House how many of that 17,000 increase was made up of British people, including British children? Until this year, they made up the largest group of people who have increased in the numbers—we are talking about British children. Will she also point out to the House exactly who makes the referrals into the human trafficking system in our country? Is it, in fact, done under her auspices, as Home Secretary, and those of the Home Office? Can people claim it, or is it actually her office that has to say whether they can do so?
Suella Braverman
What we have seen is that a large and growing proportion of modern slavery claims have been made by people who have arrived here illegally. And, as I just mentioned, there are foreign national offenders, people who have served their criminal sentences, who have upon the point of removal put in a last-minute modern slavery claim precisely to thwart their deportation. We work very closely with local authorities and other bodies to ensure that referrals are made into the mechanism. This is why the Bill will disqualify illegal entrants from using modern slavery rules in this way.
Given the mischaracterisation of the Bill by Opposition Members, I would like to make a few things clear. The Home Secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, will we remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK. Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18.
With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40. Removing them will be our primary focus, but we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal. It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Those critics who say that this Bill will be found to be unlawful said the same thing about our partnership with Rwanda—the High Court disagreed. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been and continue to be involved in the Bill’s development. The UK will always seek to uphold international law and we are confident that this Bill will deliver what is necessary, within those parameters. Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires Ministers to give a view on the level of legal certainty on a Bill’s compliance with the European convention on human rights. That is a unique UK requirement, not part of the ECHR itself. A section 19(1)(b) statement simply means that we are unable to say decisively that this Bill is compatible with the ECHR. It is clear that there are good arguments for compatibility but that some of the Bill’s measures are novel and legally untested. Those on the Opposition Benches seem to forget that section 19(1)(b) statements were made by the Labour Government on the Communications Act 2003 and by the Lib Dems on the House of Lords Reform Bill in 2012. That did not mean that those Bills were unlawful and this statement does not mean that this one is either.
Claims that the Bill will breach our refugee convention obligations are simply fatuous. The convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK. Illegal arrivals requiring protection will receive it in a safe third country such as Rwanda. Moreover, article 31 of the convention is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come “directly” from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country in which they could have claimed asylum, access to the UK’s asylum system is, therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention.
The Opposition say that this Bill cannot work because we lack the capacity to detain all small boat arrivals. We are expanding detention capacity, with two new immigration removal centres, but clearly we are not building capacity to detain 40,000 people, nor do we need to. The aim of the Bill is not to detain people but to swiftly remove them. Australia achieved success against a similar problem of illegal maritime migration. It reduced annual crossings from 20,000 to hundreds in a matter of months, in large part by operationalising swift third country removals. It did not need tens of thousands of detention places either. If we can demonstrate to people willing to pay thousands of pounds to illegally enter the UK that there is a reasonable prospect that they will be detained and removed, we are confident that crossings will reduce significantly.
In addition, arguments that our approach cannot work because Rwanda lacks capacity are wrong. Let me be clear: our partnership with Rwanda is uncapped. We stand ready to operationalise it at scale as soon as is legally practicable. It is understandable that Rwanda has not procured thousands of beds to accommodate arrivals while legal challenges are ongoing.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary has just admitted that Rwanda does not have thousands of places. She will know that the Rwandan Government have talked about taking a few hundred people and that the Rwanda High Court agreement says that cases need to be individualised, yet she is expecting to find locations for tens of thousands of people expected to arrive this year. She has no returns agreement with France or any other European country, so where is she expecting to send the tens of thousands of people expected to arrive in the UK this year?
Suella Braverman
The right hon. Member should read our agreement with Rwanda before she makes a comment such as that. If she did read it, and if she read the judgment from the High Court, she would see both that our agreement with Rwanda is lawful, proper and compliant with our international obligations, and that it is uncapped and potentially Rwanda could accommodate high numbers of people that we seek to relocate there. Rwanda has the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people if necessary.
Critics of this Government’s plan to stop the boats would have more credibility if they offered up a plan of their own. Let us look at what the Opposition plan is. They would increase the funding to the National Crime Agency to disrupt trafficking upstream; never mind that the Government have already doubled the funding for the NCA precisely for that purpose. The Opposition say that they would go harder on the people smugglers; never mind that Labour voted against our Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which introduced life sentences for people smugglers. The Opposition speak about establishing a cross-channel taskforce; never mind that we have already set up a small boats operational command, with more than 700 new staff working hand in hand with the French.
The Opposition say that they would get a new agreement with the French; never mind that only last week our Prime Minister struck a historic multi-year deal with the French to increase the number of gendarmes patrolling the French beaches. The Opposition say that we should do more with partners around the world; never mind that the Government have returns agreements with Albania, Georgia, Nigeria, India, Pakistan and Serbia. As for our world-leading agreement with Rwanda, we all know what the Opposition would do about that—they would scrap it.
The Opposition say that the Government cannot be trusted with our borders, but the fact is that the Leader of the Opposition and some 70-odd Labour MPs—a third of the parliamentary party—signed letters to stop dangerous foreign criminals being kicked out of Britain. Tragically, one of those criminals went on to kill another person in the UK—a shameful day for the Labour party. How easy it is for the Opposition to say, “Never mind the British public”, believing that they know better, arrogantly, dismissively. The truth is that they do not have a plan. What is even worse, they do not care that they do not have a plan. If they listened, they would hear a clear, reasonable and resounding message from the British people: we like controlled immigration, we welcome genuine refugees, but we do not want uncontrolled or illegal migration—enough is enough, stop the boats. That is the call from the British people—that is their cry for action to all of us who serve them in this place. This is a Government who listen—they listen to the people and, aided by this Bill, we will stop the boats.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while affirming support for securing the UK’s borders, reforming the broken asylum system and ending dangerous small boat crossings, declines to give a Second Reading to the Illegal Migration Bill because the Bill fails to meet its core objectives, lacks any effective measures to tackle the criminal activity of people smuggler gangs, fails to eliminate the backlog of outstanding asylum cases, will increase the number of people in indefinite accommodation in the absence of return agreements, leaves victims of modern day slavery without any protections while frustrating efforts to prosecute traffickers, fails to reform resettlement schemes to prevent dangerous journeys and undermines international co-operation to provide support for those fleeing persecution and conflict.”
Most people want to see strong border security and a properly managed and controlled, fair and firm asylum and refugee system, so that we have proper grip along our borders and so that we do our bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. That is what Labour believes in but, right now, after 13 years of Conservative Government, we have none of those things. Our border security has been undermined because they let the criminal, smuggler and trafficking gangs rip, and the asylum system is in chaos, letting everyone down. All that they can offer is this Bill, which makes all those problems worse.
Last year, 45,000 people travelled on dangerous small boats, up from just 280 four years ago. That is criminal gangs, making £180 million a year from putting lives at risk, yet over the same period convictions of people smugglers have halved. There has been a massive increase in the gangs who are operating along the channel, and a massive drop in the number of criminals caught. The Government are still refusing to go after the gangs, and the deputy chair of the Conservative party thinks that we should not even bother.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member if he will now support our proposals for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs.
Yvette Cooper
Immigration law is important, but the problem is that, at the moment, a huge amount of immigration law is not even enforced. There has been an 80% drop in the number of people who have been unsuccessful in the asylum system and been returned—an 80% drop since the Conservatives came to office. At the same time, our asylum system, under the Tories, is in total chaos. Only 1% of last year’s cases have had even an initial decision. Home Office decision making has been cut by 40%, the backlog has trebled in the space of just a few years, and thousands of people are in costly and inappropriate hotels.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I am also grateful for the kind comments that she made about me in an interview at the weekend regarding modern slavery work. She has just referred to the backlog in asylum cases. If she thinks that the current figure means that the system is in chaos, what is her description of the system under the Labour Government of which she was a member, which had a backlog in asylum cases of between 400,000 and 450,000?
Yvette Cooper
The former Prime Minister and former Home Secretary is experienced enough to know that that is not an accurate characterisation of what happened. By the time the Labour Government left office, the backlog of initial decisions was just a few thousand. Now it is 160,000, and in fact it has trebled in the past few years as a result of the complete failure of the Conservatives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the former Prime Minister; she and I have asked each other questions for so many years that I have to let her do so again.
Yvette Cooper
The important point that the former Prime Minister addresses is that in the late ’90s there was an issue about what had happened with the Bosnian refugee crisis and many others. In fact, it was the action that the last Labour Government took that got a grip of the system and addressed some of the challenges. We took action to make sure that we could have both border security and a system that provided for refugees and those in need of asylum. The former Home Secretary will also know, because she was responsible for introducing the modern slavery law, which I support, that the Bill rips up many of the provisions at the heart of that legislation. I hope that she and I would agree that it should be possible for our country to have strong border security, and to have strong, fast, and effective measures, which, at the moment, the Government do not have, to deal with asylum cases swiftly and speedily, but also to make provision for those who have fled persecution and conflict, and provide support for those who have been trafficked and those who are the victims of modern slavery. I hope that she agrees with me that the Bill does the total opposite.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend, like me, get really annoyed when she hears Government Members talk about a Labour Government 13 years ago? Does she, like me, wonder why the Government, having been in charge continuously for 13 years, like to look all the way back, rather than address their own failures?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right that the Conservatives have to take responsibility for 13 years in government—13 years in which we have seen refugees left in limbo, even though they have fled persecution and conflict. Those who are not refugees and have no right to be here are never returned; there has been an 80% drop in returns of unsuccessful asylum seekers. At the same time, there has been a 40% drop in refugee family reunion visas, the Afghan resettlement scheme has been shamefully frozen and children are left with no way to rejoin family. Time and again, Ministers just want to blame someone else. All the Conservative Members just want to blame someone else, but they have been in charge for the last 13 years. They keep telling us the asylum system is broken—well, seriously, who broke it?
We need urgent action to stop the dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. This Bill is a con that makes the chaos worse. It will not do the things the Prime Minister and Home Secretary have promised. It will not stop the criminal gangs or dangerous crossings; in fact, it makes it easier for those gangs. It will not return everyone; in fact, it makes it harder to get return agreements. It will not clear the asylum backlog; in fact, it will mean tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels. It will not deliver controlled and managed safe alternatives; instead, it will cut them back.
The Bill will also rip up our long-standing commitment to international law. It will lock up children, remove support and safe refuges from women who have been trafficked, and deny citizenship to people like Mo Farah. The last law the Government passed on this subject, just nine months ago, made everything worse—dangerous crossings went up, delays went up—and now they seriously expect us to do all the same things again.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The UK was one of the instigators of the 1951 refugee convention, because before the war the UK Government failed to allow Jews fleeing the persecution of the Nazis into this country. The Board of Deputies of British Jews this week said:
“Today’s British Jewish community is descended from refugees… We have significant concerns at the potential for newly proposed migration legislation to breach…the Refugee Convention.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we could be in breach of the convention if we pass the Bill today—in breach of international law and our own legacy in this area?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. Those are damning words that we have heard from the Board of Deputies and many other organisations on the impact this legislation will have.
At the heart of the Bill, there is a con. The Prime Minister has pledged that anyone who arrives in the UK without the right papers will be detained and swiftly removed, “no ifs, no buts”. But where to? Not to France, because the Prime Minister failed to get a returns agreement, and he has failed with other countries as well. The Bill makes it harder to get returns agreements, because it undermines compliance with the international laws and standards that those other countries are committed to upholding—standards that we used to be committed to upholding.
People will not be removed to Rwanda either; the Home Secretary has admitted already that that scheme is failing. The taxpayer has already written a £140 million cheque. The Home Office says it is unenforceable, with a high risk of fraud and no evidence of a deterrent effect. The Israel-Rwanda deal increased trafficking, rather than reducing it. At most, the Rwandan authorities say that they may take a couple of hundred people, but 45,000 people arrived last year.
Yvette Cooper
The Immigration Minister shakes his head, but he said in a statement in December in this House that the initial promise was to receive 200 people and the further preparations had not been made.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I am pleased with the moderate way in which my right hon. Friend is putting forward a very sound argument, in absolute contrast to the rhetoric that we got from the Home Secretary, and she hits an important nail on the head: on the front page of the Bill, we have the statement of the Home Secretary that she cannot certify that the provisions of the Bill
“are compatible with the Convention rights”,
yet in the schedule to the Bill, countries or territories to which a person may be removed include fellow signatories to the European convention on human rights. What legal advice has my right hon. Friend seen that we would be able to do that or that they will accept returns from the United Kingdom?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In order to have co-operation on return agreements, on alternative arrangements for processing or on any of those things, there must be proper standards in place, and other countries must respect those standards if they are to make agreements with us. Therefore, pulling away from the European convention on human rights makes those agreements more difficult, despite the fact that having those international agreements in place is one of the most important steps to dealing with the challenges we face.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and then to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes).
Caroline Lucas
Does the right hon. Lady share my deep concern about the placeholder clause 49, which seeks to legislate to ignore ECHR interim orders lodged against this Government’s inhumane, morally abhorrent plans, to get around the fact that what the Government are doing is not compatible with our convention obligations? Does she agree that that will undermine our global standing and make it harder to make returns agreements or anything else that she describes?
Yvette Cooper
I think it adds to the chaos within this piece of legislation that the Government have not worked out what they want to do. As a consequence, they are undermining our reputation as the kind of country that stands up for the rule of law and leads the way in expecting other countries to follow the law and to do their bit as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh, who has been patient. I will then make some progress before I take further interventions, because I am conscious of the time.
Paul Holmes
As is her right, the shadow Home Secretary is outlining her objection to this piece of legislation. She asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) whether he would back her proposals, so could she do the House a favour and outline her proposals—or is this another example of her consistently opposing and not coming up with any fresh ideas herself?
Yvette Cooper
Indeed, I am very happy to. I hope the hon. Member will support our proposal for a cross-border police unit to go after the criminal gangs and bring up those convictions, which have totally collapsed on the Conservatives’ watch. I hope too that he will support our proposals for a fast track for Albania and other safe countries, which Ministers are not doing. [Interruption.] This is interesting, because the Immigration Minister says, “Oh, we are already doing it,” except that they are not. Only 1% of the cases from Albania have been decided. The Home Office is not taking fast-track decisions on safe countries such as Albania, for all the promises the Government made. Even where they have the powers to take action, they are not doing it. I hope the hon. Member will also support our proposals to work on not just return agreements with France and other countries, but family reunion arrangements and reforms to resettlement schemes to make those work.
Instead, we have a Bill that is a con and that will make things worse. We have been clear that the Home Secretary has nowhere that she can say she is going to return people to. Last year, the Government made exactly the same promises when they said that 18,000 people would be inadmissible because they had travelled through safe countries, yet just 21 people were returned. Of those the Home Secretary said were inadmissible, just 21 were returned. Now she wants to say that everyone is inadmissible, but if she still manages to return just 0.1% of them, the reality is that she will have tens of thousands of people left. She is simply creating misinformation and conning those on her Back Benches, who have been cheering for the things she says but will see them unravel in practice.
The Home Secretary says this legislation means that she can return people to designated safe countries such as Albania, but she can do that already. She does not need this law to do that. She already has the power to fast-track Albanian and other cases. We have been calling for it for months, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees proposed it two years ago and the Prime Minister even promised it before Christmas, but it is not happening and 99% of those cases are still in limbo.
Just 15 people who had arrived in small boats were returned last month. That is the equivalent of 180 a year, when over 10,000 people came from the designated safe country of Albania. The real problem is that Conservative Home Office Ministers just do not have any grip on the system that they are supposed to be in charge of.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My focus goes back to clause 49, which looks specifically at interim measures of the Strasbourg court. We know that those measures have no actual effect in UK law, but UK courts may take them into account when passing their own judgments. Do the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party support me in wanting to see that clause beefed up to make sure that the Home Secretary is under a statutory duty to remove unlawful migrants?
Yvette Cooper
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have put that question to the Home Secretary, because he appears to disagree with his own Conservative Government’s policy and to be off on another bit of freelancing for himself, further undermining any possibility of getting international agreements, whether on returns or on anything else. He is planning to make it even harder to get the kinds of returns agreements we need and to get the kind of international co-operation we need as well.
Ministers say that they plan to lock everyone up before they are returned, and the Bill says that everyone is included. Children, unaccompanied teenagers, pregnant women, torture victims, trafficking victims, and people such as the Afghan interpreters and young Hongkongers we promised to help—all locked up because they arrive without the right papers. The Home Secretary has not said where, or how long for. It might possibly be at RAF Scampton, but the Tory right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) does not want that. It might possibly be at MDP Wethersfield, but the Tory right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—the Home Secretary’s Cabinet colleague, the Foreign Secretary —does not want that either. In other circumstances, there might be pressure on the Home Secretary to put the site in her own constituency, except for the fact that she does not actually have one right now.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A responsible Opposition must have a plan. We all agree that we have to stop these boats, but the Opposition’s plan appears to be to process asylum applications even more quickly, so that more people will come; to process them in France, where an unlimited number will want to come; or to have this ridiculous idea of a cross-border police force. Everybody knows that on average, people get caught once on the beaches by the French police, they are not detained and they come back the very next night—they all get there. The right hon. Lady knows perfectly well that the only way that we are going to stop these boats is the Government plan: to detain them and deport them to Rwanda.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Member is just kidding himself if he thinks that any of the Government’s plan is actually going to happen, or if he thinks it is actually going to work.
Clause 9 deals with what happens to all of the people who cannot be returned—the tens of thousands of people who, according to the Government, are expected to arrive after 7 March. It says that the Home Office will provide those people with accommodation and support: in other words, they will go back into asylum accommodation and hotels, but they will never get an asylum decision. Tens of thousands of people will be added to the Home Office backlog every year, only it is going to be a permanent backlog that the Home Office is never even going to try to clear. Those who would have been returned after their asylum claim was refused now will not be, and those who would have been granted sanctuary will be stuck in limbo instead. That is tens of thousands of people just added to the asylum backlog, costing billions of pounds more—up to £25 billion over the next five years.
As for the backlog the Prime Minister promised to clear, it is going to get worse, not better. Effectively, the Government have concluded that the Tory Home Office is so rubbish at taking any asylum decisions on time that they have decided to just stop doing them altogether, and they are hoping that no one will notice. Last week, I said that the Government might have decided not to call this an asylum system any more, but everyone is still going to be in the system nevertheless. Well, I got that wrong, because I have read the Bill’s explanatory notes again, and they say that:
“Subsection (2) amends section 94 of the 1999 Act…so that the term ‘asylum-seeker’ covers those whose asylum claims are inadmissible by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill.”
In other words, the Government are amending the law so that all the people who they are going to exclude from the asylum system are still going to be called asylum seekers after all, and are still going to be in the asylum system.
You could not make it up: more chaos, more people in the asylum system, even fewer decisions taken, more people detained with nowhere to detain them and more people stuck in limbo, with no one credibly believing that anything in the Bill is going to act as any kind of deterrent to any of the criminal gangs. The Government are chasing headlines, but it is all a huge con.
What is the price of that con? What is the price of those empty headlines—of cancelling asylum decisions, rather than getting a grip? The Government are damaging our international standing, our chance of getting new co-operation agreements to tackle the problems, and our commitments to the rule of law. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not take asylum decisions, yet are expecting other countries to keep doing so. They are saying that Britain, uniquely, will not follow the refugee convention, the trafficking convention or the European convention on human rights, yet are urging other countries to follow those conventions. Think, too, of the price for the people we promised to help—for the Afghan interpreters who worked for our armed forces but who missed the last flight out of Kabul, and who the Government told to find an alternative route. If those people arrive in the UK now, the Conservatives plan to lock them up, keep them in limbo, and treat them as forever illegal in the country they made huge sacrifices to help.
Think of the Ukrainian family who travelled here via Ireland, as I know some people did in the early days of the conflict, without the right papers. They could have been the family staying with me, or the family staying with the Immigration Minister. I have listened to teenagers talking about how they had 20 minutes to pack before they fled their homes, not knowing whether they would ever return or see friends and family again. Under this law, those teenagers who arrived with the wrong papers would be locked up, denied any chance to ever live or work here lawfully in the future. That is the Tories’ position: in the interests of a plan that is actually a con and will not even work. It will not work to deter the criminal gangs; it will not work to remove people, because the Government do not have the returns agreements in place, and it will make it harder to get those returns agreements. In exchange for that con that makes nothing any better, they believe that no one who arrives in Britain without the right papers in their hands should ever be able to seek protection here or live here, no matter their personal circumstances.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. Which parts of France are such that people need to flee from there to seek refuge in this country?
Yvette Cooper
As the hon. Member knows, the majority of people who are seeking asylum and arrive in France stay in France, rather than seeking to travel to the UK. However, we believe that we should be seeking to get a returns agreement with France, alongside new arrangements on issues such as family reunion, but at the moment, the Government have so undermined their relationship with France and other European countries that they have totally failed to get any of those agreements in place, and they are making it harder to do so with this Bill. If the hon. Member believes that returns agreements are needed, or if he believes that new, alternative arrangements around family reunion or other issues are needed, he should oppose the Bill, because it will make it harder to get any of those agreements in place. The Bill is undermining the international co-operation and international law that all of those other countries depend on.
Consider what the Bill means for the young Vietnamese woman who has been trafficked into sexual exploitation, repeatedly raped and beaten by the criminal gangs who brought her here and who control and dictate her life. Under the Bill, if the police find her when they bust the brothel, she will not be able to get modern slavery support any more: she will not be able to go to a safe house or get help from the Salvation Army. Instead, she will just be locked up in one of the Home Office detention centres. If she co-operates with the police for a bit, she might get some temporary support, but if that police investigation is closed, her world comes crashing down again. Here is what the Prime Minister tweeted about all of that:
“If you come to the UK illegally…You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections…you will be…DENIED access to the UK’s modern slavery system”.
Think on that. Bringing people into the UK illegally in order to control and exploit them is exactly what trafficking is. Cross-border trafficking is, by definition, a major form of modern slavery, yet this Government are proposing to just wish it away—to exclude it entirely from the modern slavery system, as if the very fact of crossing borders somehow stops it from being slavery at all. The message from the UK Government to the criminal trafficking and slavery gangs is this: “Don’t worry, so long as you bring people into the country illegally, we won’t help them. In fact, we will help you: we will threaten those people with immediate detention and deportation, so that you can increase your control over those trafficking victims.” This Bill is a traffickers’ charter.
The previous Prime Minister but three, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) promised to end modern slavery, and I respect the work that she did, but this one—the current one—wants to enable it. How low has the Tory party fallen? It is even worse for children. This Bill allows the Home Secretary to lock them up indefinitely, with all safeguards removed. It allows her to remove unaccompanied children without even considering the details of their case and whether they have fled from persecution. Once they hit 18, the Bill requires her to remove them, even if the only family or support they have in the entire world is here in the UK, and even if they have been exploited and abused by criminal gangs. The Bill denies them any protection from modern slavery and makes them forever illegal in the UK.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does the shadow Home Secretary share my concern that there was not pre-legislative consultation with the Children’s Commissioner? Why does she think that was the case?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and the Children’s Commissioner is appalled by some of the measures in the Bill and the lack of consultation, too. Remember those hundreds of children missing from asylum hotels, who have almost certainly been picked up by the smuggler and trafficking gangs? This Bill makes it even harder to get those kids back, and it makes it even easier for those gangs to increase their control. It means no sanctuary, or just temporary support at most for Eritrean girls, who will most likely have been raped or exploited, or for the 12 and 13-year-olds I met a few years ago, brought here by gangs from Afghanistan, or for children who endure what happened to Mo Farah. They would be denied refuge; they would be denied citizenship; they would be locked up and threatened with return. The Home Secretary may not want to admit it, but that is what this Bill does. It denies citizenship forever for people like Mo Farah.
The Tory party once voted to introduce safeguards on the detention of children, and it was right to do so. The Tory party once voted to introduce the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and it was right to do so, but what has happened to the Tories now? How low have they fallen and how far down are they trying to drag our proud country? That is what this Bill is: an attempt to drag our whole country down. They know that the Bill will not work to stop boat crossings or the gangs. They know it will not clear the backlog and that it will make the chaos worse. They know it will stop children and trafficked people getting help and will play into the hands of criminal gangs, and they know it will undermine our reputation in the eyes of the world as a country that believes in the rule of law, but they do not care, because this is about political games. This is about a lame Prime Minister making promises that he has no intention of keeping. All he wants is a dividing line, all he wants is to pick a fight, and all he wants is someone else to blame. He does not care if our international reputation or some very vulnerable people pay the price.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady accept that many on the Government side of the House—me included—will vote for this Bill this evening, but with the clear understanding that we wish to see amendments to it as it progresses through Parliament, particularly in relation to women who are trafficked and to children? Our votes are being given in good faith tonight, in the expectation that the Bill can be amended. Does she accept that?
Yvette Cooper
I do recognise that there are Members on the Government Benches who are deeply troubled by many of the measures in this Bill. I recognise that, and I think that reflects quite how far the Conservative party has fallen, and I am sorry that that has happened. This is an area where we should be able to build consensus, not division. In past eras, there has been consensus, for example on support for Syrian refugees. If we go back generations, there was consensus on support for the Kindertransport. There has been that support in place. We have also had past consensus about practical, sensible measures around border security, too.
It should be possible to build that consensus, and we would work with the Government to do that, but that is not what we are getting from the Conservative party, the Conservative Government, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. Instead, we have a Home Secretary who is happy to ramp up the rhetoric, rather than ever to build a calm consensus around a practical plan that sorts things out. How desperate have things become if what they are doing is ramping up hostility and hatred towards the victims of trafficking and slavery? That is not leadership. Britain is better than this.
Labour will vote for action to stop the gangs and to prevent these dangerous boat crossings. We will vote for a new cross-border police unit, for fast-track decisions and returns to clear the backlog and end hotel use, and for new agreements with France and other countries on returns, on family reunions and on reforming resettlement. We will vote for action that rebuilds border security and restores a properly functioning, credible asylum and refugee system that is properly controlled. We will not vote, however, for more chaos. We will not vote for a traffickers’ charter that lets criminal gangs off the hook, that fails to tackle dangerous boat crossings and that locks up children and leaves some of the most vulnerable people undermined. We will not vote for this Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Theresa May will get six minutes, then we are on to the Scottish National party spokesperson, and then there will be two others with six minutes. The speaking limit will then drop immediately to three minutes in order that we can get as many people in as possible.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Having been Home Secretary for six years I understand the pressures to deal with illegal migration. In my day, people were getting into the backs of lorries and the backs of cars of British tourists returning across the border at Calais. I did a deal with the French, and the numbers went down. I have to say that I suspect it is partly because of the success of that policy that we now see people coming in small boats. I welcome the new deal that has been done with France, because it will have an impact, but what should be clear from this situation is that whenever we close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way. Anybody who thinks that this Bill will deal with illegal migration once and for all is wrong, not least because a significant number, if not the majority of people who are here illegally do not come on small boats; they come legally and overstay their visas.
As well as working to reduce illegal migration, I introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as has been mentioned. That world-leading legislation dealt with traffickers and people who were being enslaved here in the United Kingdom, including British citizens, but it was never just a Bill about slavery in the UK, as we saw with the prosecution under that Act of a British woman for trafficking women from Nigeria to Germany.
I must say there has been some loose talk about people smuggling and human trafficking, and using the two terms in the same breath as if they are the same—they are not; they are two separate crimes. Someone paying their own money to be smuggled across the border is not a victim of human trafficking, which includes coercion and exploitation. Nobody wants to see our world-leading legislation being abused, but the Government have to set out the clear evidence if they are saying that there is a link between that Act and the small boats, and so far I have not seen that evidence. Remember, nearly 90% of modern slavery claims are found to be valid. That does not include recent applications, but that figure should give cause for concern.
I am concerned that the Government have acted on Albania and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, when neither has been in place long enough to be able to assess their impact. I do not expect Government to introduce legislation to supersede legislation recently made, the impact of which is not yet known.
Beyond those issues, I have three main concerns with the Bill. The first is the blanket dismissal of anyone who is facing persecution and finds their way to the UK, but illegally. Examples have been given, but a young woman fleeing persecution in Iran, for example, would have the door to the UK shut in her face. The UK has always welcomed those who are fleeing persecution, regardless of whether they come through a safe and legal route. By definition, someone fleeing for their life will, more often than not, be unable to access a legal route. I do not think that it is enough to say that we will meet our requirements by sending people to claim asylum in Rwanda. That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do.
My second concern relates to the implications for modern slavery. I am grateful for the fact that No. 10 has offered to discuss that with me, and I hope that we can find some resolution, but as it stands, we are shutting the door on victims who are being trafficked into slavery here in the UK. If they had come here illegally, they would not be supported to escape their slavery.
The Home Office itself recognises the damage that the Bill would do, stating in the explanatory notes to clauses 21 to 28, on public order disqualification:
“These provisions are subject to a sunsetting mechanism so that they can be suspended should the current exceptional illegal migration situation no longer apply”—
in other words: “We know this isn’t ideal, but we’ve got lots of people coming illegally; we’ve got to do something, so the victims of modern slavery will be collateral damage.” I welcome the acknowledgment that this part of the Bill could be reversed, but it could also then be reinstated. The Home Office knows that the Bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support.
My third concern is one that has been echoed by other former Home Secretaries of both major parties—namely, whether the policy will work. For it to work, a number of things have to fall into place. There has to be no possibility of successful legal challenge. It requires the provision of extra detention capabilities and the assurance that no one will be able to abscond. It requires the individual legal cases relating to deportation to Rwanda to be resolved in the Government’s favour. It requires Rwanda to process more than the fewer than 250 asylum claims that it currently processes every year, and to provide accommodation for and accept the many thousands of extra people. It requires returns agreements on returns with countries around the world, and the ability to ensure those returns.
Dealing with immigration is never easy. There is never a simple answer to any problem, and it is never possible to take one’s eye off the ball. It requires constant vigilance and also international co-operation.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for mentioning human trafficking. I conducted a Court of Appeal case on an unduly lenient sentence, and we got the sentence increased. It is vital that everybody understands the difference between human trafficking and people smuggling. If we do not get such basic terms right, how on earth will we get the policy right?
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his work and his recognition of the difference between people smuggling and human trafficking. It is imperative that we use careful language in relation to these issues, and that we recognise that the Bill removes support from the victims of trafficking and modern slavery.
I know that the Government are working hard to find a solution to the problem of the small boats, but I think that a number of point shed doubt on the approach that is being taken. I look forward to working with them on this issue to ensure that we can deal with the problem of dangerous sea crossings and save people’s lives while maintaining our reputation as a country that welcomes people fleeing persecution and, crucially, our reputation as a world leader in dealing with modern slavery.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
This refugee ban Bill is nothing but an abhorrent dog whistle, and my colleagues and I on the SNP Benches do not support it. We do support, however, the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, and a functioning and fair immigration system, which is a million miles away from what we have just now.
A mosaic based on a Norman Rockwell painting hangs at the United Nations. It features the faces of people of all backgrounds and is inscribed with the caption:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It is called “the golden rule”. Britain fails completely and utterly in the application of that golden rule.
I ask hon. Members and everyone listening to close their eyes. Place yourself in the shoes of a person so terrified that they must flee for their lives—a person of faith who finds themself in the wrong country, perhaps; or a woman activist facing repression in Iran; a mother desperate to protect her daughter from female genital mutilation; a boy hiding after seeing his family murdered, and facing forcible recruitment or death. You leave the world you know, travelling across mountain and desert, in trucks and cars, or on feet bleeding and sore. You face setbacks, abuse and exploitation, and use every resource you have.
Finally, you step into a flimsy dinghy, because it is the only way to cross the English channel to get to the uncle who you know lives in the UK. He is your only family member who is still alive. There is no other route. When you arrive—so close to him—what happens? You are seized, imprisoned, not permitted access to a lawyer or given the chance to plead your case. You are whisked away from sanctuary so close that you can almost touch it. This Tory Government are prepared to ignore the plight of that persecuted person of faith, those women, that child, and so many others in circumstances such as theirs. Those people will have no chance of ever finding sanctuary in the UK. The door will be closed permanently. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The Bill is being rushed through with no proper impact assessment, on the back of legislation that is barely even in place—barely even cold—brought in last year. The Home Secretary clearly declares on the front page of this Bill:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.”
This is the illegal Illegal Migration Bill. It is not legal, not just, and not compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European convention on human rights.
As much as the Government would have us believe it, the ECHR is not a Eurocratic creation but a system championed by Winston Churchill. One of its key drafters was David Maxwell Fyfe, a former Conservative Home Secretary and one of the prosecutors at Nuremburg. The Bill is bang on form for a UK Government who have previously sought to break international law in “specific and limited ways”, but it is even more dangerous than that. The Bill undermines the fundamental international obligations that the Government’s predecessors established under the 1951 refugee convention following the horrors of world war two. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has condemned the Bill, stating:
“The legislation, if passed, would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances.”
I am sure that we have all been inundated with briefings and contacts from constituents and organisations on this despicable piece of legislation. I will try my best to reflect the many concerns that have been raised with me. Overwhelmingly, I thank the constituents of Glasgow Central, who—as one would expect from the city that gave us the Glasgow Girls, the Glasgow Grannies and the neighbourhood solidarity of Kenmure Street—are resolutely opposed to this cruel Bill.
The Bill is unfair in many respects, but particularly in having retrospective effect. Parliament has only just begun the process of debating this hideous legislation, yet it will impact on people who arrived from 7 March, when the Bill was introduced. People cannot yet know for certain what the Bill will look like, yet they are already severely impacted by it.
The provisions affecting children are among the more disturbing parts of a very bad piece of legislation. Clause 3(2) states:
“The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child.”
An unaccompanied child. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Children and Young People’s Commissioner Bruce Adamson has stated his clear opposition to this Bill. He said:
“The UK is required to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, under Article 22 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The UNCRC also requires the UK to ensure that children are protected from exploitation and abuse, and afforded support for recovery. This Bill violates those obligations and many others. Its enactment would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of human rights treaties.”
The Bill reaches into Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 15 to 18 seize powers and undermine the clear protections that Scotland’s devolved institutions have established to protect all our weans.
Barnardo’s has rightly queried why the Bill gives the Home Office the power to accommodate children when hundreds of children are currently missing from Home Office accommodation and unaccounted for. It also wants to know whether an unaccompanied child who has arrived in the UK irregularly will be routinely placed into specialist foster care as a matter of policy or whether they will be eligible for adoption. If two siblings are trafficked into the UK when one is 12 and the other is 18, will both be detained and removed from the UK and denied any protection? If an unaccompanied child is trafficked into the UK and granted protection through the national referral mechanism, and a family member who they may not even have met arrives in the UK irregularly at a later point, will that disqualify the child from modern slavery protection? This whole area is deeply problematic, and even more so as the Bill allows for removal as soon as an unaccompanied child turns 18.
It is clear that the inadmissibility rules in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 do not work. Expanding inadmissibility creates a situation where there is no right of appeal: “Do not pass Go. Do not collect a meagre £8 a week in an overcrowded hotel. Go directly to immigration jail and await removal.” There are some very tight grounds for a technical appeal, but the potential for people to be removed to places where they will be at risk of persecution is real. I would love to know how the Home Secretary will know the details of a person’s claim if it is not going to be fully assessed.
The Bill talks in clause 6 about the potential for a person to be at risk of persecution due to their sex, their language, their race, their religion, their nationality, their membership of a social or other group, their political opinion or
“any other attribute or circumstance that the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
Yet if there is no application, declaration or assessment, no ability to seek legal advice, and a presumption of inadmissibility, how will she know?
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who I often disagreed with when she was Home Secretary and Prime Minister, is correct to be concerned about many of the mechanisms in the Bill. It is beyond all logic and reason that the Home Secretary should rip up these important protections. The Bill will also override the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, against our will.
The Immigration Law Practitioners Association says that clauses 21 to 28, concerning modern slavery and trafficking, clearly breach the UK’s obligations to victims of trafficking under article 4 of the ECHR and the European convention on action against trafficking. The provisions will deprive victims of their right to recovery, expose them to re-exploitation and facilitate the work of trafficking gangs. I have met people who have been supported through TARA—the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance—in Glasgow, and I have seen how damaged some of them have been. It breaks my heart to think that this Government would lock them up and give them no support whatsoever.
Amnesty International has stated that the Bill creates a “charter for human exploitation”, placing many of the most marginalised people firmly in the hands of human traffickers, modern-day slavers and other abusers. The Bill widens the power imbalance between those being abused and their abusers, and it makes it far more difficult for people ever to break free. In so doing, they would risk being removed from the UK permanently, and you can bet that their abusers will use that threat over them. Why on earth would the Home Secretary consider this a sensible idea?
The clauses on entry into and settlement in the United Kingdom are brutal. There is no entry and no chance of settlement, permanently—forever. A person can never enter the UK if they once met the four conditions the Home Secretary is setting for illegal entry, or if they are a family member of that person. Talk about holding the child accountable for the sins of the father. I understand that that applies even if the child was born here. That will surely have the wider impact of hitting people well into the future who may wish to come as tourists, to work or to study. They may have no knowledge of the previous banning order. Why would the Home Secretary wish to deny them that opportunity? What message does she thinks this pulling up of the drawbridge sends out to the world?
Clause 51 outlines the capping of safe and legal routes. These proposed routes are to be brought forward in regulations. The Home Secretary is dangling a carrot that that may happen at some point in the future—maybe, perhaps, in the fullness of time, when parliamentary time allows. Aye, right. We need those safe and legal routes now. They are part of the solution to the small boats crisis. People who come by that route do so because there is no other option. People cannot claim asylum from abroad; they literally need to place their feet on this island. It is not by some coincidence that there are no Ukrainians paying people to come by dinghy; they can get on a plane from Poland and fly to the UK without the risk of being returned there. It is cheaper. It is safer. It is humane.
The Glasgow solicitors firm McGlashan MacKay mentioned that it was dealing with some people from El Salvador, for which there was a visa waiver scheme, so those people could get here safely. The Home Office shut it down.
Afghans do not have the privilege of getting on a plane and coming here. Just 22 people, including eight children, have been resettled in the UK under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, via referral from the UNHCR. Pathway 2 is the only route open for resettlement for Afghans who are not already in the UK.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentions safe and legal routes. I am very keen that we need greater definition in the Bill, and I am also keen that we need greater safeguards for vulnerable children. Like the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Lady has focused exclusively on extreme cases of people who may fall foul of the Bill, and that is why we need those additional criteria. However—again, just like the shadow Home Secretary—the hon. Lady has made no mention of people who come across the channel who are not genuine asylum seekers and have no genuine, credible claim to come to the United Kingdom. She seems to assume that everybody coming across the channel is one of those vulnerable people. They are not, so what would she do about those people genuinely abusing our hospitality?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman knows that the vast majority of people who come over are accepted as asylum seekers and get their refugee status. He also knows that without those safe and legal routes, the question that he asked the Home Secretary at the Home Affairs Committee remains unanswered. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will not even ask to find out whether these people are genuine; everybody is deemed to be some kind of fake.
Returning to the Afghan scheme, which does not work, I spoke on Friday to my constituent Zakia, who has been trying to reunite with her sister since the fall of Afghanistan. Her sister has had the Taliban enter her home and beat her. She has played by the rules—as the Home Secretary set out and says that people should—and she has made an expression of interest, yet still nothing. If the Home Secretary was in that woman’s shoes, would she really sit tight in Afghanistan and wait for the Taliban to murder her? Because that is what happens to women in Afghanistan. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Capping safe and legal routes—routes that do not even exist right now—would suggest that if you are person x+1, well that is just too bad for you. It is not based on need. A few years ago, I was made aware that the visitor visa scheme for Iranians was essentially being run as a lottery, with the names being drawn of lucky winners. This Government could not run a raffle, and I do not trust them to establish this scheme in a timely or fair manner.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me some experience from his constituents of how difficult it is to come from Afghanistan, I would be glad to hear it.
Scott Benton
The hon. Lady is speaking of safe and legal routes. Given that there are more than 100 million displaced people globally, I wonder whether she will be kind enough to confirm how many of those people an independent Scotland would take, what tax rises she would make to fund their public services, and how many additional people she is willing to accept in central Glasgow.
Alison Thewliss
If the hon. Gentleman knew anything at all, he would know that my Glasgow Central constituency has the highest immigration case load of any constituency in Scotland, and we are proud that that is so. I would like to know how many are being housed in his constituency. I will say, too, that Scotland has taken the highest proportion of Ukrainian refugees and the highest proportion of Syrian refugees. We have a proud history in Scotland, and we would do much, much better than this pathetic excuse for a Government.
Let me turn to the practicalities of the Bill. There is no proof that it will work any more than the Nationality and Borders Act or the hostile environment worked. We were told at the time that those things were the solution to the problems that we had, but they have evidently failed, because the Government are back here legislating again.
There is no return agreement with the EU or anywhere else. Ironically for the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches, leaving the EU has made this much more difficult. The Bill lists European economic area countries and Albania, but a deal does not exist. There are already countries around the world where the UK Government will not return people, and others where there are no flights and no means of return. The Bill will create an underclass of people stuck in immigration limbo indefinitely.
The Bill will detain everybody arriving in a small boat for 28 days. The UK’s current detention capacity is 2,286 beds. The number of people crossing in small boats last year was 45,755. For context, the prison population in England and Wales in 2022 was just over 81,000 people.
Where on earth does the Home Secretary suggest that the number of people she wishes to detain are kept, as well as those who are deemed inadmissible but unreturnable? Will they be in facilities such as Manston, with children sleeping on the floor; in dilapidated and crumbling facilities such as Napier barracks, where covid and scabies were rife; or in hotels, which is lining the pockets of companies such as Serco and Mears but costing the Government a fortune and putting vulnerable asylum seekers at risk, such as those being housed in Erskine in Scotland, where they are being targeted by far-right groups?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is indeed right. The Erskine Bridge hotel is potentially the largest such hotel in the UK, and we have another hotel in Renfrewshire, unlike the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). This Government and Conservative Members assert that Scotland does not play its part, but that is clearly not the case. Meanwhile, Patriotic Alternative, the neo-fascist group, is blaming the SNP for these hotels being used in the first place, leading to security threats against my staff. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that any Conservative Members who support anything Patriotic Alternative has said should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. We should all be very worried about the rise of these groups and how they are being fed by the rhetoric of leaders and MPs across the way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing over there at the suggestion. It is terrifying, and it is scary. People will get hurt, and they should know much better.
Perhaps if the Home Secretary cannot fit people into more asylum hotels or shabby barracks, she will place those who have survived war and persecution on the streets and just let them wander the streets, because they will not be allowed to do anything else. The Home Secretary seems to envisage this as some kind of deterrent, but she fails completely to recognise the reasons why people flee, and the ties of family and English language that people have. Afghan interpreters have said to me, “We’re here, because you were there.” As Enver Solomon, chief executive officer of the Refugee Council has said:
“The plans won’t stop the crossings but will simply leave traumatised people locked up in a state of misery being treated as criminals and suspected terrorists without a fair hearing on our soil.”
All of this comes at a financial cost, as well as a humanitarian one, and we would have imagined that the Conservatives at least cared about that. This includes about £6 million per day on hotels—including for one of my constituents who contacted me today, who has been in a B&B for 20 months waiting on a decision from the Home Office—which is exacerbated all the way by the Home Office incompetence that I see, week in and week out, at my surgeries. It includes £12.7 million to compensate the 572 people the Home Office detained unlawfully last year, at least £120 million on the failed Rwanda deal, and £480 million to France over the next three years on top of the £250 million already given since 2014. The Refugee Council estimates that it will cost in the region of £980 million to detain people under the scheme proposed in the Bill. It is chucking good money after bad policy, and it is sickening that it costs so much to treat our fellow human beings so badly.
My constituent Patricia put it to me so clearly on Saturday. She said:
“I am not ‘asylum’, I have a name, I’m a human being and every human being has a right”.
People do not need to be an exceptional athlete like Mo Farah, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council like Sabir Zazai, a councillor like Roza Salih or Abdul Bostani, or even an Oscar-winning actor like Ke Huy Quan. Refugees are entitled to the right to lead an unremarkable life in peace and safety, to get an education and to provide for their family. It is not asking too much; it is the least anyone could expect. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
The SNP wholeheartedly and unequivocally condemns this cruel, shoddy, tawdry Bill. We urge the Government to scrap it, to focus instead on tackling the asylum backlog that leaves so many of our constituents in a costly and damaging limbo, and to lift the ban and let refugees work and contribute, as they so wish to do. It has been telling that the Labour party has been so weak in its opposition to this Bill as to be played off the park by football pundits, commentators and actresses such as Cate Blanchett. My credit to the principled stance taken by Gary Lineker and his colleagues in thoroughly Kenmuring the BBC, and I bet if he had tweeted in favour of the Bill, he would not have faced the red-card worthy simulation of outrage from the Tory Benches. It seems that if you are a Tory donor, you can run the BBC, but if you oppose this pathetic excuse for a Government, they do not want you to work there.
Scotland stands against this Bill. We would not have such cruel provisions in an independent Scotland. We wish to be known for our kindness, our hospitality and our compassion, not our hard-heartedness and our cruelty. We would do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here!
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a six-minute limit on the next two speakers, and then the limit will be three minutes.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
As I listen to this debate I, frankly, get more and more depressed. What we hear is an artificial juxtaposition between an open-door policy of letting everybody into this country and a suggestion that we on this side of the House are cruel and callous and do not care about people. Can I deal with that second point? It is utterly, utterly wrong. As Justice Secretary, I worked very hard to make sure that the Nationality and Borders Act could make its way through this House, and I yield to nobody in my determination to make sure that those who seek to exploit others and to profit on the back of people who are vulnerable, and who are clearly not asylum seekers but economic migrants, must be dealt with. I think this party should make no apology for wanting to make sure that that issue is addressed fair and square. That is what the people who put us here expect us to do, and that is what our constituents want us to do.
What our constituents are fed up about is the seeming inability of the system to enforce the laws we pass in this place, to get on with the job of lawful deportation and to make sure that people who overstay their visas do not stay here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, the main cause of unlawful migration is the overstaying of visas. That is not to minimise the small boats issue, but it is to put it into context. The small boats crisis, as we describe it, is actually the product of the successful approach we took to the control of lorries and the appalling incidents we saw in which many people lost their lives as a result of suffocation and other horrors. As a result, we plugged that loophole, and I am pretty sure that if we succeed in plugging this loophole, another one will emerge.
From all the evidence I know from asylum seekers I speak to in my constituency, and I do so regularly, this is a price-driven market. It is simply cheaper to come in on small boats than it is to come here by other means at the moment, and herein lies the source of the problem. The Government are seeking once again to use law where I believe it is primarily operations that matter more than anything, particularly the ability of this country to strike sensible agreements—not just with France, but with other members of the European Union—to have a managed system of return. Frankly, a quota system would make eminent sense in dealing with what is an international problem. We came together on Ukraine. Why on earth can we not come together on this?
That would make sense of clause 51, and the Government’s wish to have a debate in this House on a cap or a quota. I think that is a sensible measure, but it will only work if we extend safe routes of passage in a controlled and measured way. We have to do more on safe and legal routes. In fact, doing that would strengthen the Government’s case against those people who are choosing small boats. It is as plain as a pikestaff to me. However, that must happen in tandem with this legislation. It is no good passing this legislation unless we do those other operational things.
To deal with a particular clause, perhaps not in Second Reading tradition, I have great concern about clause 3 on the detention of children. I note that this is a power, not a duty. When powers are put into Bills, it is usually because policy makers have not actually decided what to do and whether to use them. It is a holding mechanism in order for the Government to make a decision. My strong suggestion to them, when we come to amend the Bill, is to ditch that clause and look carefully at the way we deal with unaccompanied children, families and women. There is nothing worse than ineffective authoritarianism and that is the danger of such provisions.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Government were to look at proposed new section 8AA(4)(b) in clause 29, and particularly the phrase “compelling” evidence, and to bring forward criteria that defined compelling evidence, that might reassure a number of us on the Conservative Benches that the Bill would not prevent illegal sex trafficked young women from seeking provision and protection under the Modern Slavery Act 2015?
Sir Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right. It is going to be vital that there is clear guidance. We have been here before. When it comes to modern day slavery, there has been a question about the interpretation of guidance. I know it is a vexed question for the Government, that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration is assiduous in these matters and that he will want to get it right, but we will have an opportunity in Committee and on Report to do so. The Bill as presented is not yet in the state that it needs to be in if it is to have the effect that I think the Government want it to have.
On the interaction between the Bill and the European convention on human rights, I hope that the Bill is not being used as some sort of battering ram to make a wider political point about the validity of the European convention. The European convention is not the problem in this case and those who think it is are setting up a massive Aunt Sally when it comes to the actual issues. Whether we are in the convention or not, domestic law, our rule of law tradition and the procedures we have under various immigration Acts—some of which I was involved in passing through this House—will inevitably impose principles of natural justice on any process. The idea that, through a blanket approach, we will engineer a battle with the courts and a battle with the European convention is misconceived and a journey on which I urge the Government not to embark.
There is no need to talk about withdrawal from the convention that British Conservatives wrote. What we need to focus on relentlessly, in dealing in a grown-up and mature way with a serious situation such as this, is ensuring that, internationally, our reputation as reasonable actors and people with whom other countries can do business, and as a place where people will want to invest, is enhanced by our approach to these issues. That is why the tone of this debate is so important. I am concerned that, in some of the utterances I hear from my party, that tone is not appropriate. We have to do better. We have to rise to the level of events. We have to get it right.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
To follow up on that point about the issue of tone, despite the strong views held about this Bill both in this House and outside by actors, football commentators and archbishops, I believe there is consensus that we all want to stop people crossing the channel in unsafe, small boats, and risking their lives in some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The Government’s flagship immigration Bill underpins one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities to the British people. It is so important. That is why I asked the Leader of the House whether the Home Affairs Committees could carry out pre-legislative scrutiny to test the robustness and evidence supporting the Bill. Sadly, that has not been possible. It is also disappointing that we have not had an impact assessment —an equality impact assessment, or a child rights impact assessment—accompanying the publication of the Bill.
I also hope there is consensus across the House that the UK should do its bit to support those fleeing persecution and torture, sharing that responsibility with our international partners. We need to put this into context. Not every displaced person in the world wants to come to the United Kingdom and we are not facing an invasion. We know that countries such as Turkey take the lion’s share of refugees and nearly 70% of refugees end up staying in the region they come from.
So what exactly should the Government be doing about small boats? Last summer, the Home Affairs Committee published our report into channel crossings. We made the important point in the report that no one magic bullet will solve the problem. As I made clear last week, the Home Secretary is right that our asylum system is broken, but it is not the migrants crossing the channel who broke it. Poor resourcing, antiquated IT systems, high staff turnover, or too few staff have resulted in this backlog of 160,000 cases. Tackling the backlog has to be the most important priority for the Home Office.
Another key message from our report was the need for detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy to tackle this problem, rather than simple headline-grabbing announcements on Rwanda, for which there is still no body of evidence regarding the potential deterrent effect. Other recommendations included the importance of establishing a returns agreement with the European Union, extending family reunion, and creating safe and legal routes. We all know that people may travel without papers using irregular methods, but have a solid case for seeking asylum that needs to be considered under our international obligations. The Bill currently would deny that opportunity.
Positively, at the end of last week, we saw further agreement with the French on tackling small boats, albeit we still need that returns agreement with the EU. Although it is encouraging that the Government are improving their relationship with the EU, we now find them stress testing our international obligations and potentially breaking international law.
On the Bill’s specifics, its proposals present a huge logistical challenge for a Department that is not known for good project management or for being on the front foot. It has three essential pillars: detention, deportation and deterrence. Each raises serious and fundamental practical issues to which we need clear answers in order to understand how the Bill will work.
The Institute for Government has helpfully summarised the key questions. First, does the Bill adhere to the UK’s international obligations? Secondly, how does it change existing policy on inadmissible claims? Thirdly, where can the Government send asylum seekers who are deemed inadmissible? Fourthly, what does the Home Secretary consider to be a “reasonable prospect of removal”? Fifthly, what will happen to people who the Government cannot remove to another country? Sixthly, how will the Government accommodate people they have detained and how will they pay to do so? Seventhly, will the Bill deter people from crossing the channel in small boats?
I have many concerns, particularly on the provisions relating to unaccompanied children, children and families being detained, and victims of trafficking and modern slavery. The Salvation Army stated in its briefing on the Bill that modern slavery is not an immigration issue; it is a safeguarding issue. The men, women and children trafficked against their will to the UK and enslaved should not be punished for being victims, but that is what the Bill will do.
On deterrence, during the Select Committee’s visit to France earlier this year, we heard evidence that people who have arrived in northern France, having travelled thousands of miles in some cases, will not be put off when they can see the British coastline from the French beach, and have little or no knowledge of Home Office policy or British laws. Therefore, we need fully to understand how the plan for detention, deportation and deterrence will work in practical terms. I am concerned that the Bill potentially leaves the Home Office in a legal quagmire, with up to tens of thousands of people detained for a period and then bailed into a permanent state of limbo, unable to be removed, unable to have their asylum claims processed and unable to reunite with families. There is nothing specifically in the Bill about tackling criminal gangs, people smugglers and traffickers. To conclude, we all want action on small boats, but we want effective action that will deal with the problem.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Countries mean more than their borders. National character, shared heritage and the institutions that give that history life matter. But borders matter too, for they are what mark the territory that defines citizenship, with its implicit entitlements, responsibilities, opportunities and duties, and the plain fact is that our kingdom’s borders are being breached day after day with impunity. Since 2018, some 85,000 people have entered Britain illegally, 45,000 of them in 2022 alone. Seventy-four per cent. are men under 40 and 100% have travelled through safe countries, where they failed to claim asylum, to get here. Accommodating them is costing the British taxpayer every single day £6 million. It cannot go on.
Of course, Britain should provide a safe haven for people in fear—in genuine need—but it is a deceit to pretend that the asylum system has not been gamed and the British people taken for a ride by economic migrants with no legal right to be here, enabled by fat cat law firms that have grown rich on the proceeds, aided and abetted by militant interest groups that are determined to subvert the will of the people and cheered on by vacuous self-indulgent celebrities leading millionaire lifestyles. It may be uncomfortable for the bourgeois liberal establishment, but polls show that the British people want tough action on illegal immigration. Indeed, polling last week showed that people support the principles of the Bill.
Benjamin Disraeli said that justice is truth in action. Today, the Government are giving voice to the true wish of the British people to restore justice to our immigration and asylum system. It is not extreme to want to cap all kinds of immigration; it is not immoderate to deport illegal immigrants; and it is not unreasonable to give the Government the tools they need to do just that. It is time to take back control of our borders. It is time to stop the boats.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I have to say that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) makes a very unlikely class warrior. I would also like to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) gave her usual forensic analysis of the situation and I am very grateful to her for doing that. I agree with the Home Secretary on one thing: her comment that we should choose our words carefully. It is just a pity she did not do so herself.
The reason I wanted to speak in this debate is that, as you are aware, Mr Speaker, there is a hotel in Knowsley with 180-plus asylum seekers. I will not talk about that in detail because I had an urgent question on it a few weeks ago, but I will say that, since then, the situation has deteriorated to the extent that some of the refugees have been verbally abused in the street and others have been assaulted. They fled because the countries they come from were unsafe, only to find themselves in an unsafe position in this country. I think we should all be ashamed about that. It is not just happening in Knowsley; it is happening all over the country.
I want to conclude by saying something about why the Bill is before us in the House. The shadow Home Secretary convincingly pointed out the failures in the system that have led to this, but why are the Government bringing forward a Bill that anybody who knows anything about it knows is not going to work? The answer is that, with some notable exceptions—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), to name but two—broadly speaking, those on the Conservative Benches split into two groups. The first group are deluded and actually believe this is going to work. The second group are cynical, do not believe it is going to work, but are going along with it anyway. That is a shameful set of circumstances. At least those who are deluded will wake up tomorrow morning and think, “We are still right.” Those who are cynical will wake up tomorrow morning and have to look at themselves in the mirror—and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Many in this House want to say that the Government are inciting people’s worst instincts on immigration. I want to say optimistically that, ultimately, it is not the Bill, the Home Secretary or the Government who are causing that feeling. In fact, they are in touch with the widespread symptoms of it from people—decent people—in constituencies like mine up and down the country, and we have to heed those views. In my judgment, enough of the fine people of Skegness say, accurately, that they are already doing a huge amount. They say that asking them to do even more has untold consequences. They say, in short, that endless numbers cannot be made to feel welcome if they worry that the town they are staying in will never be the same again, in part because of it.
When enough people feel that way, we mainstream moderates in this House have to act, because if we do not, we should know that it is the racists and the extremists of the far left and the far right who will take our place. We have already seen Patriotic Alternative march in Skegness. If, however, we act now, there is a chance to stop decent British people withdrawing their consent. That is why the aims of the Bill are not just compassionate; they are the only compassionate option. They are the most compassionate way: breaking the business model of both the people smugglers and those who buy hotels to sell back to the Home Office at profiteers’ rates. All that has to end.
I want to end by saying that we do need to have safe routes from dangerous countries and we do need to have provisions for men and women who are trafficked, and for children who are taken by irresponsible adults to these shores, but we must not use those hard cases to pretend that we cannot do better than where we are today. If we do not, compassion will cede the ground to ignorance and hatred. We have to act, or we will stretch the licence that voters give us to act on their behalf beyond breaking point. In Skegness, I am not exaggerating when I say that for some, this is an issue about democracy and the effectiveness of government itself. The Bill is not just about stopping the boats; it is about stopping that democratic tragedy. That is just one reason why I will be proud to support the Bill this evening.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The words of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) must have some meaning for him. They do not for anybody else in this debate, because they do not make any sense or bring any delivery for the people we represent.
This country is based on the rule of law. We are in the UN Security Council. We wrote the European convention on human rights. We were the main principals behind the Geneva convention. We penned the war crimes legislation that is now in existence. People here are being accused of being lefty lawyers for doing the right thing and standing up for people and for our rights which are enshrined in law. We have always worked to the letter of the law, and so we should.
The Home Secretary takes no advice from the Bar Council and no advice from the Law Society, which both say that the Bill will create contradictions and will have problems in the courts, just like those the Government have already had. The Government do not want to do anything about that, and that is a problem. There are no safe routes for anybody to come through. Afghanistan has been closed. Hong Kong has been closed.
Mr Mahmood
The Minister shakes his head. If he tried getting out of Afghanistan, he would see what the issues are.
Women who have been trafficked will have no support under the Bill. Young children in jeopardy will have no support under the Bill. The Bill is against the people, and against the human rights and civil liberties of people. The Labour party does not say there is an open and a free door. That is what the Tories say about the Labour party. The Labour party is here to look at open and positive immigration. That is what we want to do.
The Home Secretary said that she cannot be xenophobic or racist just because of her colour and origins. I say to her, being of the same colour and origin, that that is exactly what her politics are about—dividing our society and our community based on that. That is what she continues to do. The best thing that she can do is to look at what is right for the people, rather than making political decisions that she thinks will win her the next election. That is not the case. The people of the United Kingdom are not so naive as to allow this huge nonsense of xenophobia and racism from her party. She needs the knock of humanity to move forward with these issues.
We are all here representing all of our constituents—the Home Secretary does not understand that. For her sake and for the sake of all the people who come here, I hope that we are responsible for human beings and show humanity moving forward.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I echo the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) in saying that we need some calm and seriousness in this debate. Tone is important, even if it has sometimes been lacking. In that spirit, we should observe that it is not unlawful or illegitimate, when faced with novel developments in the means of unlawful entry into the United Kingdom, to test the legal position. That is what the Bill does, and no more at this stage. It is legitimate to do that.
I support the international convention on refugees, but we have to recognise that it was conceived in 1951, at a time when people were smuggled across borders, and there was perhaps a little bribery of local officials or some altruistic assistance for people to get over borders. That was before the time of organised criminality exploiting vulnerable people. We have to reflect the reality of that change in circumstance. The Government are entitled to look at how that might best be done. That is a case for judicial dialogue in Strasbourg, and for renegotiating some of the international treaties.
That said, some of us are able to support the Bill only because of the safeguards written into it, such as habeas corpus.
Stephen Hammond
Does my hon. Friend accept that a number of Conservative Members support the Bill tonight on the basis that when it gets to Committee and Report stage, the Government will confirm in more detail the legal basis of the statement that it complies with our international obligations?
Sir Robert Neill
I have great faith in the legal input of the Attorney General and the advice of senior Treasury counsel on the Bill. My hon. Friend is right about that. Some of us will look to improve the protections for children and families and some of the tests, such as the suspensive serious harm test and the compelling circumstances under new subsection (4)(b) in clause 29. Were it not for things such as that, it would be very difficult to support the Bill, but they are in there and we need to build on them.
I want to make it clear that legislation itself is not a solution. Left on its own, the Bill will not achieve anything, and nor will any other Bill. The real need is to operationalise the situation and to improve the lamentable performance of our asylum and immigration systems over a number of years. It is ludicrous that immigration tribunals sit empty and that fee-paid, part-time immigration judges who are used to surge capacity sit unused because the Home Office is unable to get the files in order to present before the tribunal. If it cannot get the cases through the system efficiently and accurately, the Bill will fail.
A kind of isolationist unilateralism will not solve an international problem. Many of us think that the Prime Minister’s work on Friday will be every bit as important as any piece of legislation in finding a way forward to what I hope will be a new agreement with France on security and a movement to a proper returns policy. We need a returns policy with friendly and safe countries to make the Bill work. The Prime Minister has the seriousness and the tone to achieve that.
Finally, we must ensure that we swiftly undertake a sensible approach to the international position to ensure that our reputation continues to be upheld. The rule of law matters domestically and internationally. That does not mean that we turn a blind eye to organised criminality abusing our hospitality—that is a real concern to my constituents. That is why it is important that we move forward, but the idea that any piece of legislation alone will do that, without serious operational changes and the resource to go behind them, is misleading.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Just when I think that I cannot be shocked any further by this Government’s inhumanity, they try to rush this abhorrent and unlawful Bill through Parliament. Human rights and legal organisations are calling this one of the most damaging Bills introduced by a British Government in living memory. That is because the Illegal Migration Bill amounts to a refugee ban. It breaches fundamental and internationally recognised human rights, and attacks our way of life and our communities all over the UK.
Let us be clear: persecuting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering do not benefit the majority of people. The cynical and dangerous use of scapegoating to divide people by an unpopular Government who have overseen a horrifying death toll during the pandemic and continue to inflict hardship and suffering across the UK, damages our communities. We have already seen an alarming rise in violence and intimidation organised by the far right against refugees and refugee accommodation. But beyond the rhetoric, spin and fake news, the fundamental point is that most people in small boats are men, women and children escaping terror and bloodshed. Chillingly, it is a truth that the Government are obviously aware of, because the majority of people arriving in the UK via boats are granted asylum. They are creating a cruel mechanism to deny sanctuary to people who they know are legitimate refugees and in need.
Why are migrants being forced into risking their lives in the first place? It is simple: for many, there are no safe routes to the UK. In 2022, half the men, women and children who crossed the channel in small boats were from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Iran, Sudan or Syria. We know the reasons that people from such countries are displaced, yet only 22 refugees came to the UK on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. How can that be true? Just recently, the Government confirmed that they do not intend to introduce any special visa routes for people in Turkey and Syria who have been affected by the earthquakes.
As the daughter of migrants who faced violence and persecution from the far right in east London, I am all too conscious of the consequences of pandering to racists. Whether it is the Bangladeshi community standing up and leading the anti-fascist fightback on Brick Lane following the murder of Altab Ali in 1978, or the Jewish community who came together in the battle of Cable Street in 1936 to stand up to Oswald Mosley, in east London we will never let our communities be divided or targeted. The Government should be saving lives, not salvaging their failing political record. We need an approach that prioritises people’s lives and dignity. We need safe and legal routes to the UK. We need the Bill thrown out of Parliament.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
We are a rich country—the world’s fifth largest economy. We have international obligations, and it is right that we meet them. In 2020, we were the third highest donor to overseas development in the OECD in absolute terms, and the sixth highest as a proportion of gross national income. We have welcomed thousands of people to this country from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong. Whether through the Government and the taxpayer or through people opening their homes, we have seen the great generosity of British people. Indeed, Gary Lineker was correct today to write, as he did on Twitter, that we are
“a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people.”
Where I think that he, and others who make the opposing argument, is wrong is that he ignores the fact that that tolerance can be tested and that generosity, while deep, is not limitless.
I take a rather hawkish view on immigration. It should be in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands, but I have been surprised by the depth of feeling of Gedling residents on this issue. If I hold a supermarket surgery or knock on people’s doors, what is raised with me unprompted—if not potholes—is the issue of boats and migrants. I think the depth of that feeling is understandable, given the context.
Albania is the top country for small boat arrivals, with 25%. However, compared to other countries, Albania does not face the major international issues for which people request asylum. While there are pull-factors, including language and shared history, the passage of asylum seekers through multiple safe countries undermines the idea that the system we have is one based on fairness.
The asylum case load has doubled since 2014; that increasing burden is unfair to those who are already in the system, awaiting a decision. As we have seen in numerous television pictures, the people arriving across the channel are mainly male, whereas it would be commonly understood that it is mainly women and children who are the most vulnerable. It is also wrong that asylum claims should be granted after a cross-channel migration that has the role of the smuggler as a de facto part of the asylum process. Therefore, it is right that we tackle the issue robustly.
I can put it no better than the person who put an anonymous note through my door at the weekend, which said:
“Dear Mr Randall, I implore you to vote to stop this vile trade. It has to stop now, and you and your fellow MPs can make it happen.”
Today, we can make that happen; we must stop this vile trade.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Listening to the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that somehow or other we have gone back in time. In much the same way as people in the 19th century spoke about the deserving and the undeserving poor, today we have landed in a place where we have the deserving and the undeserving desperate.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of men who crossed the channel, but he may not be aware that 7,177 of those who crossed the channel last year were children. The characterisation that he and others have made today is not borne out by the statistics provided by the Home Secretary and the Home Office itself.
There are many different reasons why hon. Members should vote against the Bill this evening. We may choose to vote against it because of concerns about legality, both in respect of our domestic legislation and our international obligations under treaties. It is difficult for those on the Treasury Bench to deliver lectures to those in Beijing in relation to adherence to international law if we do not live up to the same standards ourselves. As the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, we can choose to reject the Bill on the basis of the impact it will have on our world-leading modern-day slavery legislation. We can even reject it because it lacks a basic sense of British compassion. I was a Minister in the Government that abandoned detention for children for immigration purposes, and I am horrified to see the Conservative party seeking to restore it today.
If compassion and concern for the rule of law are not enough to speak to the values of hon. Members, I can offer them one further reason, which is simply that it will not work. It will not achieve the deterrent effect that it seeks to claim. We have been told this before. We were told that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was going to be the Act that would solve the problem, but what has happened since that came into force? The numbers have gone up and up.
The truth is that many people who deserve and are entitled to asylum at present will not get it if the Bill passes. And what will be the consequence of that? They will be sent away and many of them will die. That is why this House should reject the Bill tonight.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise to make a simple point, because in the time available that is all we can do. I will draw a little bit of light rather than heat into the issue. I want the Government to succeed in restricting the boats coming across, and in getting rid of them eventually, because of the danger for all those who try to take that route. It is incredibly dangerous and people have died, particularly children.
I want to make a point about one specific area. The Centre for Social Justice brought through the original paper on modern-day slavery. I was enormously proud of it and I was enormously proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—the Home Secretary, as she was then—was able to bring that into legislation. We were the first country to adopt that. It is not perfect but there are things that can be changed.
I say gently to the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), and others on the Front Bench, that I do not understand why the Bill makes such a big deal of modern-day slavery when that represents a tiny proportion of people who come over using that route. Let me give a few figures: 6% of small boat arrivals in 2022 claimed modern-day slavery. It reality, the total number is even smaller. When the Government say 73% of people
“detained for return after arriving on a small boat…then referred to the NRM”,
that amounts to 294 people. We are talking about small numbers.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we genuinely need to recognise that we have to be careful when treading on this. We are dealing with those who are trafficked, not people smuggling; there is a big difference between the two things. Some 60% of the claims on modern-day slavery are domestic claims, here within the UK, by people who have been trafficked into brothels or who are working in chain gangs. Those are the sort of people we really do want to stand up for, and I recognise that there is a big difference.
The people who my Government—my right hon. Friends, with their legislation—want to seek to stop are those who are coming across illegally, using smugglers. By the way, the single group that gives us the greatest credibility and likelihood of prosecuting those people smugglers, are those who have been trafficked and who then give evidence.
I simply want to say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we need to look carefully at what we are saying in the Bill. How will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be able to make a judgment about whether somebody has come illegally or has come illegally and is trafficked, if the national referral mechanism is not to be used for that purpose? If we can get that down to 30 days, most people could be processed without having to take an arbitrary decision. I want my Government to succeed in this matter, but I beg them to be very careful about the modern-day slavery legislation and to protect it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
We need to tone down the debate. Let us be clear: no one on the Opposition Benches wants the small boat crossings to continue or to see people forced into those boats. We want to see legal routes for those people and for them to find alternatives rather than having to go to those traffickers. Nor does anyone on the Opposition Benches want anyone to stay in the UK who has committed a crime and has no right to remain. It is time that Conservatives MPs stopped standing up and making claims such as that.
The overriding problem with the Bill, as has already been said, is that many Government Members know it is not going to work. The danger is that, beyond that, they think that the solution to the problem is for us to leave the European convention on human rights. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, they are not respecting what the European convention on human rights means to this country. For instance, if we want to arrange for the safe return of failed refugee claimants from this country, we will need to have an agreement with countries in Europe that are signatories to the European convention on human rights. If we are not seen to be inside that convention, they will not be able to enter into those agreements, so they will be defeating the very object that they seek to achieve in the legislation.
Moreover, if we are to fall foul of the European convention on human rights, we will not be able to reach legal agreements on issues such as extradition, fingerprints, DNA on biometric data or the essential exchange of that data when dealing with serious crime. Beyond that, a serious criminal, harbouring in Europe, could claim legitimately that their human rights are at risk if they are extradited to the UK. Imagine that argument in a case made by a serious criminal who we want to extradite back here to face justice. They might say that their human rights are at risk and that would be a legitimate claim for them not to face justice in this country.
The Bill is not the solution to the problem we have. We need to create safer routes for people who are legitimate asylum seekers to come to this country. We need to deal with the backlog and we need to create an organisation that will deal with the criminals who are trafficking people across in small boats. That is the way forward, not this piece of legislation that is just dog-whistle politics.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
We are very lucky to live in a country people want to escape to, not a country people want to escape from, and we should all be mindful of the words we use. I support the Bill’s Second Reading, but I want to make a few points.
Four hundred years ago, John Donne wrote:
“No man is an island, entire of itself”.
In today’s interconnected world, no country, even if it is an island, can be entire of itself. The war in Ukraine has reminded us that when there is instability or insecurity in another part of the world, it can result in instability and insecurity here in the UK. It is very important that the UK can use its official development assistance funding to help poorer countries to build their stability, but we are having to divert billions of pounds of our ODA funding to care for the tens of thousands of people who have come to the UK by small boats. That is money that could instead have helped tens of millions of people to tackle the causes of instability in their own country.
John Donne also said that
“any man’s death diminishes me”.
The UK has a long history of giving asylum to those who have suffered war or persecution. We should continue to offer asylum, but the small boats route has resulted in many lives lost, not just on the channel but on the way to the channel. Action needs to be taken to close that extremely dangerous route.
We also need to recognise that no country’s capacity to offer asylum is unlimited. We must focus our support and prioritise helping the most vulnerable. The vast majority who arrive by small boats are men under the age of 40, not the disabled or the frail. By giving priority to those who arrive by illegal routes, we reduce the amount of support that we can give to safe and legal routes and we divert resources away from the vulnerable. That is not fair and it is not compassionate.
I am pleased that the Government have announced that they will introduce more safe and legal routes, but they need to go hand in hand with other measures, not come as an afterthought. Furthermore, it should not be left to local authorities alone to decide how many people our country can support. I recall that when I was children’s Minister there was a time when all Scottish local authorities bar one refused to take any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children at all. I am concerned that if local authorities are left to their own decision making, many will say that they have no capacity to support asylum seekers.
Finally, as a former children’s Minister, I note the comments that the Children’s Commissioner made today. I hope that these important points can be addressed as the Bill moves through its stages in this House. I hope that the Government will be able to find a way to ensure a fair, balanced and compassionate approach to migration, and that this will be the one that prevails.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will focus on aspects of the Bill that potentially breach the European convention on human rights.
The Committee will be scrutinising the Bill very carefully and reporting on it in early course. So far as I can see, however, the Bill is designed to set the UK on a deliberate collision course with the European Court of Human Rights. In their human rights memorandum, the Government accept that the Bill engages articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the ECHR. By her statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary clearly accepts that some or all of those rights might be breached by the Bill. For once, she is correct.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights published in January our report on the Bill of Rights Bill. We said that that Bill should be scrapped. Now we see some of its most reprehensible aspects cropping up in this Bill. Time permits me to identify only two. First, clause 1(5) undermines the fundamental principle of the universality of human rights by creating a class of people in respect of whom the courts in the United Kingdom will not be required to interpret the Bill in a way that is compatible with the convention.
Secondly, clause 49(1) sets conditions on the UK’s compliance with interim measures issued by the Court in Strasbourg. The Home Secretary tries to pretend that there is something unusual about such orders, but any undergraduate law student knows that for a legal system to be effective, courts must be able to issue interim orders requiring parties to take, or not to take, certain steps while the full arguments in a case are litigated. In Scotland, they are called interim interdicts, while in England they are interim injunctions; I am sure the Home Secretary must have heard of them. Such orders are issued by the Strasbourg Court to prevent irreparable damage to human rights while a case is being considered. It was interim orders from the Strasbourg Court that stopped Russia executing British soldiers Shaun Pinner and Aiden Aslin.
Talking of Russia, many of the Bill’s provisions echo legislation passed by Russia in 2015 that limits the availability and applicability of ECHR rights—and we all know what happened to Russia’s membership of the convention. Is that really the sort of bedfellow that the UK wants?
In Scotland we want no part of this. The convention is written into the Scotland Act, embodying the devolved settlement, which is the settled will of the Scottish people. If the UK takes us out of the ECHR, it will be without the consent of Scottish voters and without the consent of our Parliament. When I led a delegation of the Joint Committee to Strasbourg last year, I was told by interlocutors there that if the UK leaves the ECHR it will strengthen the case for Scottish independence. While the Tories try to give Labour a headache, they are creating yet another reason for Scots to favour independence over the status quo
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I fundamentally disagree with almost everything that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, as many people may understand.
I believe in the rule of law, I believe in Parliament, I believe in democracy and I believe in the sovereignty of this Parliament. I therefore want this Bill to work, but I do believe that it will require amendment in Committee or on Report. There needs to be a “notwithstanding” formula in the Bill to enable us to ensure that the courts cannot simply apply the arrangements currently in operation. As Lord Sumption said at the weekend, of course the courts will obey an Act of Parliament where it is necessary to do so.
I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) about clause 49, which addresses interim measures of the European Court; I have made the same point myself, as indeed has Professor Ekins, a professor of constitutional law at Oxford. The bottom line is that we will have to make certain that only final judgments will apply, not interim measures. I could spend much more time on that point, but I will not. I am quite sure that a “notwithstanding” provision will be required, because otherwise I am afraid that the clause may not work effectively.
On international law, I simply say to hon. Friends that article 31 of the refugee convention, which deals with unlawful refugees in respect of, for example, the United Kingdom, does not apply at all unless such refugees have come
“directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.
It therefore does not apply if they have come from France or Albania, for example. For the same reasons, article 33 does not apply. We are compliant with international law in these respects, which is of great benefit to us and to everybody concerned.
We have prevaricated for far too long. The Labour party will never sort this out. The unelected Lords will oppose this Bill. The Bill, as amended by this elected House, must therefore be made subject to the Parliament Acts and must receive Royal Assent before the general election. The Prime Minister is right to say, “Stop the boats,” but it has to be done lawfully. Under the Bill, with some amendment, we will be able to achieve that. Promises will not do. I am sure that we will find that the promises that have been made can be fulfilled.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is an unexpected pleasure.
I will be voting against the Bill today. I am proud to support the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) to stop the Bill in its tracks. This pernicious Bill fails to protect children and other victims from trafficking, fails to ensure safe routes for refugees and fails to treat people with humanity. It disgracefully expands the Government’s hostile environment. If enacted, it will mean that anyone who has been put in the desperate situation of having to arrive in the UK on a small boat because of this Government’s failure to facilitate safe routes will have their asylum claim deemed inadmissible. The Home Office will not even consider their claim, no matter how strong their application may be.
Clause 2 will enable the Government to seek to remove anyone who does not arrive via a specific route or with specific documentation. Those are requirements that the Government know it is next to impossible for somebody fleeing violence and persecution to meet. The 1951 United Nations refugee convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states explicitly that refugees shall not be penalised solely by reason of unlawful entry or because, being in need of refuge and protection, they remain illegally in a country. As the United Nations points out:
“Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and ‘legal’ routes available to them. Denying them access to asylum on this basis undermines the very purpose for which the Refugee Convention was established.”
Trade unions and human rights campaigners have rightly condemned the Bill, under which everyone who is subject to the new removal duty can also potentially be detained. The House should be doing everything in its power to ensure that people fleeing persecution and violence are given the safety, care and support that they need, not inflicting further trauma and harm on them. Is this really what we have become? It shames those who have gone before us in the House.
This anti-refugee Bill must be voted down. It is inhumane and immoral, and if I were a betting man I would also say it is illegal. The TUC has said that the
“Government’s proposal and the language used to describe it are divisive and will stoke tension.”
We saw evidence of that on the border of my constituency in Knowsley last month. The language used is so dangerous and damaging to our communities.
Let me end by making an observation. It is not the people in boats we should fear coming to our shores, but the elite in the private jets who, along with this Government, are responsible for the unequal, broken society in which we live, where millions shiver and starve in their own homes, seeing no future for themselves and their families. I urge the House to reject the politics of division, and reject a Bill that shames this place and everything that it is supposed to stand for.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made it clear that tackling illegal immigration is an absolute priority for this Government, and I wholeheartedly welcome the firm measures outlined in the Bill. The sad fact is that this country has been a soft touch for far too long. Our asylum policy has been chaotic, granting approvals to questionable claims and leaving people waiting years for decisions, and all at a cost of billions of pounds per year to the taxpayer. It is any wonder that the people of this country are sick and tired of the situation?
My constituency is the most deprived in England. Many residents cannot access housing, struggle to obtain a GP appointment, and have little chance of finding an NHS dentist. They have paid into the system all their lives. Is it any wonder that when they see people entering the country illegally, receiving free accommodation, free food and access to local services, they are incredibly frustrated and angry?
Let us dispel some of the myths surrounding this issue that we hear from the Opposition, from lefty lawyers and from celebrity do-gooders. Many of the people entering this country in small boats are not genuine asylum seekers. If their lives were truly in danger, they would have claimed sanctuary in the first safe country where they had arrived. Instead, these people have travelled through many safe European nations to try to come to the UK. They are invariably single young men, and increasingly from nations such as Albania. They are coming here not for sanctuary, but as illegal economic migrants. Our public services are already creaking under enormous pressure, and we simply cannot accept hundreds of millions of people who would no doubt seek to come here for a better life. I am afraid that this country is nearly full.
The measures in this Bill are ones for which the residents of Blackpool have been crying out for an awfully long time, but they can work only if we fully enact our Rwanda plan. It has been immensely frustrating that this policy has been tied up in the courts, both domestic and foreign. It is outrageous that the policy of the elected Government of the day should be restricted in this manner, and it is clear that the Bill is likely to encounter similar judicial frustrations. However, I urge the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to stop at nothing to tackle this issue. If the Bill requires reform of, or a departure from, elements of the ECHR framework —as seems likely—that is exactly what we must do. We simply have to sort this situation out, and the Government have my full support in doing so.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Let me remind the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) that the reason our public services are crumbling and people cannot see a dentist, and the reason NHS workers are queuing up at food banks and parents are living on their children’s leftovers, is nothing to do with migrants, asylum seekers or refugees; it is the fact that his party has been in power for the last 13 years.
Last night, Ke Huy Quan won best supporting actor at the Oscars. In the 1970s, he fled Vietnam in a refugee crisis that saw countries closing their borders to desperate people arriving by boat. Had he arrived on our shores under this Bill, he might well have been locked up and deported. Last year, the Olympian Sir Mo Farah revealed that he had arrived in the UK under a false passport, trafficked from a war zone into domestic servitude. Had he arrived under this Bill, he might not have been eligible for access to modern slavery protections.
I raise those examples not because I think that refugees should need to win awards and medals before they are respected, but to remind the House that the refugees whom the Government seeks to ban are people, with their own hopes and dreams—people who want to rebuild their lives and be reunited with their families; people who, like any one of us, may go on to do exceptional things or lead very ordinary existences, as should be their right. I say that because it seems that some Members need reminding of refugees’ humanity. When they say “invasion” they present desperate people seeking sanctuary as a threat, when they say “stop the boats” they mean that we should turn our back on refugees, and when their policy is welcomed by far-right groups, we should all be alarmed about the direction in which the Government are taking us.
What the Home Secretary is proposing is a de facto ban on seeking asylum in the UK, because for the vast majority of refugees there is no so-called legal way of reaching the UK. If you face religious persecution in Iran, there is no scheme to which you can apply. If you are a victim of torture in Eritrea, there is no visa that you can obtain. Even if you are from Afghanistan, a country that is supposed to have a resettlement scheme, the chances of your being accepted are vanishingly tiny: only 22 people have arrived under pathway 2. It is our asylum policies that are forcing people into the arms of smugglers and pushing people into fragile dinghies in the world’s busiest shipping lane, and it is this Government who are to blame for the misery that they cause. The only one way in which to resolve this situation is to open safe and legal routes—now.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
This country, including the people in my constituency of Hyndburn and Haslingden, is amazingly kind, as we have seen with the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I think that people in this country are genuinely supportive of immigration and refugees when they perceive the legislative system to be fair. Stopping channel crossings is not just vital for the UK; it is the humanitarian policy option as well.
Every moment we flounder and stagger around this debate, people smugglers are preying on people in Calais and Dunkirk, persuading them to make an unsafe journey, and that must be stopped. To do that, we need to address the pull factor: the feeling people have that if they can just get to the UK, they will be settled for life. While I welcome the Prime Minister’s new agreement with France, we cannot rely on that policy alone to reduce numbers. The Opposition have claimed repeatedly that new agreements with France are their priority, but the Prime Minister has already achieved that, delivering the largest ever small boats deal with France.
In my inbox, and when I am out and about on the doorstep in Hyndburn and Haslingden, this is one of the most frequently raised issues. I often think, when I hear SW1-centric commentators debate the subject, that the voice of people in northern communities such as mine is completely ignored. The fact of the matter is that in my part of the world, Hyndburn is supporting the second highest number of people receiving asylum support in Lancashire. The north-west as a region has more people in receipt of asylum support than Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined.
The Home Office acknowledges that these numbers fluctuate quite regularly, and that leads me on to my second point. The current system prioritises moving asylum seekers out of the south-east. We need to ensure not only that we have a fair immigration system but that places such as mine in one of the most deprived areas in the country do not bear the brunt of it where we are already struggling. We need a fair system, and that is why the people of Hyndburn and Haslingden support this legislation put forward by the Home Secretary.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is frankly frightening that we are at the second stage of a Bill that begins with an effective admission by the Home Secretary that the proposed legislation is not compatible with international law and human rights obligations. Yet despite this, the Home Secretary says that they want this House to go along with it anyway. The European convention on human rights is often misrepresented by the Conservatives and their media friends, but the facts are that it was drafted by the UK and it protects the rights of my constituents in Leicester East and of every one of us.
The Bill is frightening, not just for refugees but because it sets a precedent that the Government can simply choose to derogate our human rights with almost no route to legal challenge. Not even children are safe under this Bill. While it does not instruct the deportation of unaccompanied children, it does give permission for their deportation if the Government or the Home Secretary so wishes. This is monstrous legislation, and no assurances from Conservative Members can make it less so. Will the Home Secretary commit today to protecting the rights of unaccompanied children and to ensuring that they will not be deported under any circumstances?
Let us be clear: while the Government disguise the Bill under their “stop the boats” slogan, this legislation is designed to give them the power to pick and choose which people from which countries and regions can apply for asylum, whether they come by boat or not. Many would argue that this is racist legislation, allowing safe and legal routes for a select group but not for others in classic colonial divide-and-rule style. According to the Government, a person escaping torture, persecution or war—even those wars involving British-made bombs and weapons—who applies for asylum on arrival is already disqualified and automatically made ineligible with no right of appeal, and under this Bill, they will be deported.
Furthermore, the Bill gives the Government the power to detain for 28 days human beings who have committed no crime, with no right of appeal or right to apply for immigration bail. This is a state-sanctioned fascism. It is inhumane and cruel. It is beyond dispute that the Bill is an attack on internationally protected legal rights, but it goes even further to explicitly state that its purpose is to exclude certain human rights entitlements from the asylum process. The Bill states that certain human rights claims are made inadmissible. It is also a move by the Government to put themselves and their agents above the law. The late, great Tony Benn famously said we should watch how a Government treat their refugees because that is how they will treat UK citizens—
Mr Speaker
Order. In fairness, I want to get everybody in, so please help each other and help me.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Sovereign states have a duty to protect their borders from the illegal movement of drugs, contraband and people, but sovereignty is not just about protection from outside interference; it is also about having responsibility for our own citizens’ welfare. We hear so much about rights but not enough about responsibilities. The UK Government, as with any Government, have a responsibility to protect democracy, the rule of law and the rights of their citizens.
The UK’s illegal immigration issue is complex and multifaceted. It is about rights and responsibilities, and it needs addressing. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have put together a plan that will significantly address illegal migration. Illegal migration is wrong. Organised immigration crime, which is what we are talking about here, makes it easy for criminal gangs to make money and funds other forms of organised crime. Illegal immigration is not just a moral question; it is about fairness, too. It is not fair on hard-working British taxpayers who are spending billions a year funding the support for illegal immigrants when there is already pressure on our public services.
Illegal immigration is not fair on those who come here legally and abide by the rules, and the abuse of our system undermines trust in the system. Paying people smugglers is a choice, and entering the UK illegally prevents law enforcement from conducting criminal record or security checks. We have a legal visa route for those people who wish to come here to work, and we do not have a Government that are against immigration. The number of non-EU visas was at an all-time high last year. Criminal gangs who make money out of people trafficking and smuggling must be stopped and their business model dismantled.
I have listened to the narrative about illegal immigration over the past three years or so. Opposition Members are quick to criticise and challenge any measures taken by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, but they have no plan and no solutions of their own. None has any desire at all to stop this trade and to secure our borders. None has any desire to exercise the primary responsibility of a UK Government, which is to serve, safeguard and protect the British public. Why do they think it is wrong to deport people with no right to be here, including foreign criminals?
We have to stop the boats, and the Conservatives are the only party with the plan and the desire to do so. Opposition parties are pro-open borders; they just will not admit it. They are dishonest to this House and to the British public to claim otherwise.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I despair at the tone of this debate and the dog whistle, the false argument—we have just heard it—that the Labour party wants open borders. Nothing, absolutely nothing, could be further from the truth. We have heard manufactured political rows in recent days and in this debate, but I say to Conservative Members who are willing to listen with an open mind that this is a serious issue.
To be clear, I want secure and safe borders for my constituents. I want a robust and fair asylum system. I want compassion for those in desperate need of help, as the UK has always provided, including this Government to people from Syria, Ukraine and Hong Kong. But I want the system to work, and it is not working at present. The Government say it is not working because of migrants, but I say it is not working because the Home Office, on this Government’s watch, is not fit for purpose.
If rhetoric alone worked, the issues we are debating today would have been fixed by the last three immigration Bills, which we opposed because we said they were unworkable rhetoric. I am afraid the same is true of many of the measures before us tonight. When we hear talk of hundreds of millions wanting to come to these shores, it is sensationalist. To say we are going to be “swamped” is just wrong. To say that we are going to be “overrun” is not correct. We hear that “lefty lawyers” and “saboteurs” in the courts are to blame—it is always somebody else.
I believe there is actually a lot of common ground, as we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We can get around the table, and together we can plan an asylum and immigration system that works in the interests of our country and our constituents. This Government championed the fight against modern slavery, but this Bill does a disservice to that issue.
Finally, it does not matter what we think about the European convention on human rights. Many of the countries listed in the schedule to this Bill are also signatories, and they will not accept returns if we are against the convention. The Government need to rethink.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I rise to support this policy because I believe it is fair, sensible and in keeping with the UK remaining a compassionate country. An asylum system should not be based on people’s ability to make the journey to a foreign country—that is what is not fair.
Those who oppose this policy say that people would not need to make the journey if there were more safe and legal routes. Let us follow through that line of thought and say we set up application centres in France. Although the journey would be less strenuous, a grandmother in a wheelchair or a double amputee would still be less able than a fit adult to make the journey, so it would remain unfair. So let us say we set up application centres in a more accessible country such as Turkey. What would happen next?
Even if there is disagreement on the exact figure, no one can deny that many millions of people around the world would be eligible for asylum in the UK. If tens of thousands of people are willing to make such a long and arduous journey to the UK to seek asylum, it is obvious to me that many, many more would make an easier journey to somewhere like Turkey. I cannot imagine the number being less than double, and there is no reason to think it would not be even higher. For anyone who understands British public opinion, it would be completely untenable to continue with that position. We would then need to introduce a cap, and then what? Of course, we would have to turn some people away. A humane policy would prioritise granting the elderly, the disabled and ill people asylum, which would leave fit, younger people as the ones we turned away. There is no reason why they would not make the crossing by boat in any case and we would be right back where we started.
That is why more safe and legal routes will not solve this problem—because at the heart of the issue is the fact that many more people could legitimately claim asylum than the British public would or should reasonably take in. If someone’s test of an asylum policy’s humaneness is whether a particular deserving individual—we have heard many such examples this evening—can obtain asylum, no policy will ever pass it, because unless we agree to take in everyone, there will always be people who would like and deserve to come here who will not be able to do so.
What the British public expect is that we take our fair share. Even if someone personally wants the UK to take many more refugees than we do, we have to remember that we are talking about taxpayers’ money. Compassion paid for by someone else is compassion that must be offered carefully, because if we do not do that, we find that we grow the resentment and hostility that we seek to avoid in the first place. The British people are fair and compassionate, and they ask me and they ask each other, “If people are coming from France and they are young men, are they really the people we have in mind when we want to say that we give a safe haven to the most vulnerable? Does a preference to come to an English-speaking country give someone a right to be here?” Those are fair questions and if we do not answer them, someone else will.
That might seem harsh, but I am a Conservative because I believe we should act with our heads as well as our hearts, and that we should care less about how something looks on social media and in the Chamber, and more about what it actually does. There is no problem-free panacea to this issue; it is about doing what helps best overall, which is why I am supportive of this policy and I am confident that the British public will be too.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
This dehumanising Bill will not stop boats, but it is no exaggeration to say that it will destroy our asylum system, it does rip up international law, it leaves modern slavery legislation in tatters and it tramples all over human rights. But the implications of this Bill for people—for the human beings caught up in it—are the most important consideration. The reality is that every man, woman, pregnant woman and child, no matter their individual circumstances and history, is to be treated in the same brutal way. Whether to a young man who fled the Taliban because of his sexuality, a woman tortured and raped because she converted to Christianity, or a child trafficked here by a gang for exploitation, this Bill says, “We don’t care. They applied for the wrong visa or they arrived here by the wrong route.” That is all that counts under this Bill, not the horrors that these people have had to endure. It is as though to this Government these are not human beings; all they are is a political problem.
How this Bill treats these people is nothing short of sickening. The provisions on detention, if anyone bothered to read them, are outrageous. Protections for vulnerable people, pregnant women and children are tossed aside. Judicial oversight of liberty is made almost worthless. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), talked about habeas corpus, but that is a prehistoric relic and we should not be left to rely on it to secure somebody’s freedom. The Home Secretary basically helps herself here to a power to detain whoever she wants, for as long as she wants. It is, to put it mildly, extreme stuff.
The permanent inadmissibility rules are as stupid as they are heartless, leaving genuine refugees—the Afghan, the Christian convert—either waiting to be removed to Rwanda for years on end or in permanent limbo. Bizarrely, and I do not think this penny has dropped for Conservative Members at all, it actually makes it harder to remove people who do not qualify for asylum, because if we do not consider their asylum application, we cannot remove them to their home country. That is explicit in the Bill, so this is making it harder to remove people who have no genuine claim for asylum.
Trafficking victims are also disgracefully abandoned in this Bill. For the overwhelming majority, there will be no recovery period. There will no leave to remain. They are being forced straight back into the arms of their people traffickers. The treatment of children in this Bill is equally shocking, with more detention; more unsafe accommodation, from where they can be exploited; less child protection; their being kicked out of this country at 18; and no prospect ever of citizenship.
So this is an utterly disgraceful Bill that needs to be kicked out today, Frankly, the timetabling of the Bill is also a complete disgrace, as is the lack of an impact assessment. It is pathetic that Parliament is allowing itself to be treated in this manner.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
All western countries have immigration controls. They have rules and a system that people have to go through. Thousands of people fill out the forms, get the sponsors, pay the cheques and go through the official Home Office systems, for a range of purposes. We all deal with constituency casework, and sometimes it takes a long time to get a legitimate wife in or to get somebody approved for a job. But no Government in the western world can allow the legitimate rules-based system to be undermined by people arriving illegitimately in boats as they do in Kent, because it undermines the whole system. It undermines all those people who decide to follow the system. The majority of people who arrive in Kent are white men under 40 who want jobs because they are economic migrants. We ought to ensure that we stop the trade so that, ultimately, people do not come here. If they want to come here, they should follow legitimate routes. The reality is that people who arrive illegally cause the state to spend resources on them, which is a massive irritation to our constituents. That money could be spent on education or the NHS. It could be spent on speeding up processing by the Home Office system so that those who are waiting to come in legitimately could enter more speedily. Many people think we are being taken for suckers because we are not dealing with this system. The Home Office is trying to set up rules that ensure that we deal with the situation which our constituents elected many of us to deal with, to control illegal immigration.
There is clearly work to do on the Bill. Bills are not perfect and this will go through the full parliamentary process. I think that the Home Office is trying to do its best to ensure that we safeguard our borders for a range of reasons. I agree with comments made by some of my hon. Friends, including the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). It is not just laws that we need to pass—we need to administer the system far better. I have confidence that the team in the Home Office will get on top of this and begin to deal with the issues that our constituents feel passionately about. It is only fair and reasonable and it is what people expect.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government and their immediate predecessor have not tried to formulate workable policy on this issue, which was evident from the Home Secretary’s bizarre and unconvincing opening speech. They are trying to keep the European Research Group and other agitators onside—grubby politicking by using the most vulnerable people, often fleeing the effects of our wars, or persecution or reprisals, as collateral damage. The reality is that most asylum applications are fully justified. In the end, after long and unnecessary delays, three quarters of applications are granted, yet these are the people the Government want to deny entry, not because of their circumstances but because of how they arrived.
We now have the abject sight of Ministers putting out propaganda that boasts that anyone arriving by small boat will not be offered the protections of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Ministers are actually saying that they will refuse protections to people being trafficked and used as modern slaves, making the policy a charter for people trafficking. They cannot say that they are combating people smuggling if all they are doing is putting policies in place that encourage it.
One of the arguments that is often used, especially in relation to France, is that it is a safe space. I was in Calais earlier this year, and I can tell Members that it is anything but safe for refugees, particularly children. In fact, our Government are paying more and more money to make it more hostile and unsafe for the vulnerable people who go there. [Interruption.] They absolutely are.
The Bill does not address any of the issues when it comes to the need for humanity, but there is an alternative, and it is a policy that is supported by all the experts in the field. We could establish safe and legal routes—not the mythical routes that the Home Secretary does not seem able to name; she does not seem able to give a single indication as to what they are. There could be a number of processing centres close to the French coast. Residence visas could be issued to all those entitled to be here. They could be transported here safely, with no excuse for maintaining appalling immigration detention centres. If the argument of humanity does not appeal to Government Members, they could think about the millions of pounds that would be saved. Companies such as Serco, Mears, G4S and Clearsprings—the big winners in the immigration detention estate—would lose some money, and the tabloids would have to find someone else to attack. Government Ministers would have to find a new enemy to distract people from their spectacular economic failures. We would not be breaking international law, demonising vulnerable people or falling out again with our closest neighbours.
This legislation should not have seen the light of day. There is nothing worth retaining, which is why I was pleased to table a cross-party amendment. I am pleased to support the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. If Government Members are as disturbed as they say they are, they should do the right thing, walk through the Lobby with us and vote against the Bill.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have been trying for two years to get a young girl, Maira Shahbaz, into this country. Aged 14, she was raped and abducted and she is now hiding in a room after being forced into marriage. I am told that I cannot get her in because the whole system is under such pressure, so I am all in favour of safe and legal routes.
However, the fact is that such is the misery in the world that there is no limit to the number of fit, able young men who want to come over here from Iraq, Eritrea and Syria. I do not blame them; I would do the same. We speak English, President Macron has a point that we have no identity cards—maybe we should have identity cards—and they can get jobs here. We could open a safe and legal processing centre in Lille and it would be overwhelmed: 1,000 would apply today and 10,000 tomorrow. There is no limit to how many people want to come. We could process asylum applications even more quickly, and that would produce even more applications. We could have more gendarmes based on the beach in France and, as I said earlier, people will try the first night, and the second night they will make it.
We have to do something, otherwise they are coming to every hotel. Every single hotel in the country is rapidly being filled up. For two years, I and my local council of West Lindsey have been producing a fantastic plan to try to get redevelopment of former RAF Scampton. We will get £300 million-worth of investment. It is the home of the Dambusters and the Red Arrows; we will have a heritage centre. But the Home Office is so desperate, because every single hotel is filled up, that it has now marched into my constituency and said that it wants to put 1,500 asylum seekers there.
Of course we oppose that. Nobody else in this Chamber cares a damn about what happens in Gainsborough, but I am the local champion; I care about my people and I care about £300 million-worth of investment. I am asking for an assurance from the Home Office that, if the asylum seekers do come in, they will not put at risk that wonderful development. However, in an interview with BBC Radio Lincolnshire, Peter Hewitt of Scampton Holdings said that his development would be “totally scuppered”, that the move would be
“rather inconsistent with running an airfield and airside operations”,
and that, if the housing plans went ahead, 40 acres out of the 130 acres earmarked for redevelopment would be taken up.
That is just one example of what is happening in our country. The system is broken. We have to do something about it, and international experience proves, whether in Greece or Australia, that the only two policies that work are offshoring or pushback. Nothing else works. Unless we pass this Bill, unless we have the courage to try to create an asylum system that brings into this country the real asylum seekers such as Maira Shahbaz, the people who have been raped or forced into marriages, we will have a never-ending stream of young men paying criminal gangs to get into our country.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Back in 2019, the company that provides accommodation for asylum seekers in Northern Ireland housed around 1,000 people. Last Thursday, the figure was 3,271. One third of them are in traditional housing stock and two thirds populated within 20 hotels in Northern Ireland, predominantly on the eastern side of our Province. I know the pressure that that places on some local communities and some local services.
Earlier in this debate there was a challenge to Members that they should be temperate in their language and courteous to one another, so let me say this, as the Democratic Unionists’ spokesperson on home affairs and immigration in this Chamber: I am not an out-of-touch lefty. I am not on the side of people smugglers, I am not a naive do-gooder and I am not against the British people, but I will be supporting the official Opposition’s amendment this evening.
I say that as somebody who supported the Nationality and Borders Bill when it was before this House. I say it as somebody who, when the Prime Minister came to this Chamber a number of weeks ago and highlighted the problems with our immigration system, was incredibly encouraged that he recognised that there was a problem when so many applications are being approved in the United Kingdom, yet similar ones elsewhere in the European Union are not. I thought there was a clear sign that our Government were actually going to grasp these issues in a way that would work, not present us with a Bill that, on the face of it, is incompatible with the ECHR. I am interested in dealing with the problems of unmanaged or illegal migration in this country, but I am not interested in getting involved in what amounts to a culture war—a political culture war that is more about the forthcoming general election than anything else. It is a shame all around.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were probably too polite when they addressed this shibboleth as to what is really behind this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead was right when she said that the Nationality and Borders Bill has not had enough time to bed in. I thought the Prime Minister was right when he highlighted the deficiencies in the system. How much better would it be to sort out asylum applications and the process of assessing them than to do away with the process of accepting asylum applicants altogether? I have stood in this Chamber against indefinite detention: it is cruel, and it is immoral. This Bill will probably proceed this evening, but it will not proceed with my support at this stage, and I will certainly be working to change it.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I entered politics in 1999 and, since then, having become a Member of this place in 2019, I have always put representation at the heart of everything. We are a representative democracy before we are anything else. When I represent the people of Dudley here, I speak from the heart, saying that an overwhelming majority would want me to support the Bill put forward tonight.
The Bill would deter people from undertaking very perilous journeys, and not only across the channel. It is those people who perish in the channel who we get to hear about; the ones we do not get to hear about are the ones who might be coming across from the other side of Africa, or from another God-forsaken country, all the way to Calais. We do not hear about the harm that comes to them, but while the message out there is “Set foot in this United Kingdom and you shall not be removed ever again”, we remain a magnet, and people will continue to make those very dangerous trips.
I hear what Opposition Members say. I hear what Scottish Members say. I must mention the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). She was right when she said that Glasgow Central takes more asylum seekers than the rest of Scotland, but that is a very relative comment to make when speaking to everyone in this Chamber. The debate in Scotland in November 2022 —only a few months ago—was to argue against the Home Office, which was saying, “You should be taking 4,000 asylum seekers under the dispersal scheme.” The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which represents a significant number of councils in Scotland, was saying, “No, we can’t do that. It should only be 2,000.” It was a member of the Scottish Government who said that it should be a voluntary system for councils in Scotland.
I hear from Labour Members, who like to virtue signal and show that they are representing their own views, rather than those of their constituents, when they talk about people who should be coming to this country because they are raped or because they are children. What is actually happening, if we look at the Albanians who have come over here—just to give an example—is that 14,000 of them have come from a safe country, Albania, to another safe country, France, and over here. Why do we never hear about them from Labour Members? We only hear about those tiny numbers who they like to talk about.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, where we were told time and again that that Bill’s provisions to criminalise refugees would break the business model of people smugglers, despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying that the sorts of measures being proposed risked failing and driving people to more desperate routes. That Bill was designed not to work, but to create the appearance of doing something: for the headlines, to provoke a fight with the UNHCR, to attack immigration lawyers, and to provide a platform for the lie—repeated again today—that Labour believes in open borders. Less than a year after it became law, here we are again. The Home Office impact assessment was proved right, the position in the channel is worse, numbers making desperate journeys are higher, the appalling Rwanda scheme is stalled, and what is the Government’s response? To double down on failure. We have a new Home Secretary, but the same approach.
This Bill is even more cruel, and we should look in particular at the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns over child refugees, but the central proposition remains the same: to defeat people smugglers by criminalising their victims. Again, it is not designed to work, but to create the illusion of action—talking up a problem, but offering no solution. It is cynical, irresponsible and damaging to our politics. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the PM was right to say that there is a global migration challenge, but the Government like to give the impression that those entering Europe do so with the sole intention of getting to the UK, ignoring every safe country along the way. Of course, that is not true. Nineteen other European countries take more refugees by head of population, and the biggest numbers are hosted by countries such Turkey, Colombia, Pakistan and Uganda.
We need an honest debate. We need to stop the “good refugee, bad refugee” narrative of Ministers. The Government have closed doors to all seeking refuge, except from Ukraine, from Hong Kong and the desperately difficult route remaining from Afghanistan. Ministers should stop demonising economic migrants. Clearly, we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come here, but it is not a crime for them to seek a better life for themselves and their families—it is what people have done since the beginning of time. There is an irony that as Ministers demonise those coming for work, they are actually opening up new routes, as the Financial Times reported last week.
We need a joined-up discussion on migration and asylum, and we need to take care with the language. When Ministers talk up problems around refugees and raise false expectations about the legislation, it damages democratic politics and opens opportunities for the far right, as we have seen in recent weeks. Let us tone down the rhetoric and look at real solutions. We can start by voting down this Bill.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Our immigration and asylum system must be fair and able to support people fleeing violence and persecution and those who are most vulnerable, but it must not be undermined by criminal gangs who profit from illegal immigration and put at risk the very people we want to help. Do people believe that the criminal gangs are supporting asylum seekers? Does anyone in this House believe that we should thank them for their humanitarian endeavours? Of course not.
Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should be based on assessment of need, not on ability to pay or connections to criminal gangs to bypass the system. Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should never mean that lives are put at risk in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in a small boat. Safe and legal routes must be the means through which the most vulnerable receive support, not by giving in to criminal gangs.
Schemes such as the Syrian resettlement scheme, the Afghan scheme and Homes for Ukraine have seen many thousands of refugees successfully relocated to the UK. We need more such schemes so that refugees, wherever they come from, can access safe and legal processes for claiming asylum. Our communities have opened their hearts and homes to those seeking refuge, and they will continue to welcome those genuinely fleeing violence and persecution. That is their choice, but our communities do not choose an ever-increasing burden of illegal immigration being foisted on the country by criminal gangs.
In the past year, 45,000 people illegally entered the UK by small boats. It costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Imagine if the money spent housing people who came here illegally was used to create more safe routes for asylum claims—imagine the difference that would make for the thousands of genuine claimants without the means to access legal routes. Imagine the difference we could make if, instead of political point scoring, the parties on the Opposition Benches joined with us to end the exploitation and illegality that is rife in the current system and worked with us to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
This immoral, deeply cruel and divisive Bill breaks international law, rides roughshod over human rights and shames us all. I would argue that it shames especially the Ministers who are deliberately and dangerously stirring up hatred with their vile and dehumanising language. I am pleased to associate myself with the reasoned amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
Let us have clarity on some of the facts. The UK offers safety to far fewer refugees per capita than the average European country, including France and Germany, and to far fewer than the countries neighbouring those from which 70% of the refugees from the global south flee. Behind the numbers and statistics are real people with lives, hopes, families and dreams. In the words of the British-Somali poet Warsan Shire,
“no one puts their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”
and unless
“home is the mouth of a shark”
or
“the barrel of the gun”.
The bottom line is that, far too often, there are no other routes available to those fleeing violence and persecution, many of whom have family here with whom they want to be reunited. Locking them up is beyond cruel.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that the Bill
“would amount to an asylum ban”,
but Ministers simply do not care. They are even coming up with new ways to circumvent international law. The Bill explicitly gives them the authority to ignore future interim ECHR rulings, so even if a case were lodged in Strasbourg, they could still press on with detaining and criminalising asylum seekers while the courts are deciding—a process that can take up to three years.
The Government do not care whether the policy works—that is not what it is about. It is about dividing and ruling; it is about stoking cultural wars; it is about picking a fight with the European Court of Human Rights for cynical electoral gain. The Government certainly do not care about the human beings caught in the crossfire. If the Government seriously wanted to protect the lives at risk from small boat crossings, they would back more generous family reunification rights and support safe, functioning routes.
I have a constituent whose wife and daughters are stranded in Turkey, having fled Afghanistan in August 2021. They do not have the documents to apply for a family visa, and they are not eligible for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. They have played by the rules for the past 18 months and are desperate enough to consider crossing the channel to be reunited. Government Ministers have not lifted one single finger to help. Even those who are eligible for the ACRS cannot make it work. Not one Afghan has come to the UK via pathway 3 of the ACRS since it opened in June last year.
On the front page of the Bill, the Home Secretary invites Parliament to rip up international law. The only act of a Parliament that has any kind of moral integrity would be to rip up her illegal and immoral Bill, which has no place in statute.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I will support the Bill this evening. The whole point of the Bill—its overriding objective—is to decisively break the current model of the criminal smuggling gangs. In short, it seeks to remove any incentive to pay thousands of pounds to criminal gangs and to attempt to cross the English channel by boat to gain illegal entry to our country.
To put the debate into context, since 2015 we have given safe harbour to just under half a million displaced and vulnerable people from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and, of course, Ukraine. By contrast, most of the 85,000 who have entered the UK illegally since 2018 have come from safe countries, and almost all have travelled through safe countries. Of all those illegal entrants, the majority are adult males, not vulnerable families. There is no war in Albania, for example, but a quarter of recent illegal immigrants to the UK originate from there.
What has Labour’s answer been? Well, no one seems to know. At last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, all the Leader of the Opposition could do was criticise the Government’s proposals without saying anything about what his party would do differently. The shadow Home Secretary put in a similar performance the previous day, when she said that we need “slogans and not solutions” but offered nothing but empty slogans.
After three years without a policy position, Labour has hurriedly cobbled together five bullet points, none of which is original and all of which have no detail to them. Setting out aims with no measures to achieve them is not a plan; it is empty rhetoric. The Labour party has no plan to tackle illegal immigration, and, more to the point, it shows no sign of wanting one.
The Government have said that our approach is two-pronged: first, to stop the small boats, which the Bill is designed to achieve, and secondly, to expand safe and legal routes, as has been done in the case of Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine, alongside an annual cap set by Parliament. I would like to hear more about that from the Government, because I believe it is important that such proposals be brought forward quickly as the Bill proceeds through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) has been vocal about the idea of creating an offshore asylum visa processing system, which I think could be helpful.
The Bill cannot be the end of the story in dealing with illegal immigration, but it is a solid foundation. At a stroke, it could destroy the business model of the criminal gangs and remove the incentive for people to risk their lives on hazardous channel crossings. The principle of the Bill is therefore clearly right, and I will be supporting it this evening.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
My constituency is the most diverse in the entire country; 80% of our community has heritage from a different part of the world. Many of my constituents, including the multiple hotels that we have holding asylum seekers and refugees, welcome those people into our community. In Ilford we embrace humanity and the differences in our community. We recognise the struggles that we all face, and that blaming each other for the ills that our country faces is not the right way forward. Our local churches helped Afghan and Iraqi refugees find Korans so that they could practise their prayer. It is wrong for Conservative Members to say that this is not about our constituents.
Let me be absolutely clear—I am speaking on behalf of my constituents—that the Bill is the most inhumane and unjust piece of legislation. It will do nothing to solve any of the problems that the Home Secretary outlined today. If it passes, it will effectively criminalise asylum in this country and allow the Government to commit flagrant human rights abuses without any real consequence. The United Nations says that the Bill would breach the refugee convention and undermine a long-standing humanitarian tradition of which the British people and I are proud, instead punishing people fleeing persecution and conflict—conflict that is often the consequence of decisions taken in this place and by our country, historically or in more recent times.
In the short time that I have, I want to tackle the incendiary rhetoric from this Government. It is the playbook for the next election from a desperate Government. I have spent a large part of my life fighting the far right, not just in Barking and Dagenham but across the country. Some of the language that I have heard over the past months and days has reminded me of the language that people like Nick Griffin used to describe people. It is appalling, it is un-British, it is unacceptable, and it needs to be challenged.
In a recent report, Hope not Hate said that there is growing alignment between the language of the traditional far right and the language used by the mainstream right. Those on the Conservative Benches are supposed to be the mainstream right, but I look at that side of the House and it is just like a turbocharged UKIP. You should be ashamed of yourselves for this Bill.
Sam Tarry
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will finish simply by saying that if the desire is to prevent children from making these dangerous journeys and to protect them, the solution is clear: more safe routes for resettlement, and expanding and improving the existing family reunion schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member knows that you do not address directly other hon. Members.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
After that extraordinary contribution, which mirrored a number of contributions we have heard, let me first say something about the irony of those on the Opposition Benches criticising rhetoric and incendiary language. So far, we have had one Member describe the Bill as “fascist” and one describe it as “racist”—we have gone through the whole gamut of left-wing clichés. I am not bothered, Madam Deputy Speaker; it does not concern me what any single Opposition Member thinks about what I believe and what I stand for. But it does concern me when they slander my constituents and millions of people throughout this country who have legitimate concerns about small boats and their social consequences. We are spending £6 million a day—the total is £3 billion and rising—on hotels, and we are expected, as a Parliament and a Government, simply to do nothing. I believe that this legislation is needed.
Let us get to the heart of the Bill, rather than the rhetoric that we have heard from Opposition Members. Let us see whether the British people disagree with this. The Bill makes provision for an annual cap on the number of people admitted to the UK through safe and legal routes. Who disagrees with that? Nobody. Numerous countries, all over the world, have an annual cap. Would it not be nice for this place, just for once, to take some responsibility for immigration policy—not to subcontract it to a court or somebody else, but to decide the type of immigration we need and where we need it?
Let us talk about capacity—this is never addressed by the Labour party. In my area, we have no housing, we have no doctors’ places and we have no school places. This is something the Labour party just simply wants to ignore. Migration policy is related to a number of different factors, but it is an eminently sensible policy that the people of this country support. Let us go on to the next one that is such an outrage, which is promptly removing those with no legal right to remain in the UK. That is a principle, and there is a legitimate debate to be had about how successful we have been, but how can we argue about that as a principle? There will be a legal duty on the Home Secretary to remove people within a reasonable and practicable time, and a 28-day period to allow that to happen. How on earth can that be unreasonable? This is a policy that responds, and it is what we should have.
In the current system, we have the ironic situation with the Home Office where we have doubled the number of case workers and have lost productivity. We need some targets, and we need people to be held accountable. What this Bill is about, which Opposition Members do not want, is holding each and every single one of us accountable for what we believe in terms of immigration policy and it is about how that immigration policy can be put in place in a reasonable, sound and fair way for every single person in our country.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Gary Lineker and others are right to caution about the use of language in this debate, but I think it is important that we also understand why people use the words they do. When the Home Secretary talks about invasion, when she refers to “us and them” continuously and when she tries to characterise this problem as there being millions of people waiting to come to the shores of this country, she does so for a particular reason. She does it because, generally speaking, the people of these islands are compassionate and fair-minded, and in order to get acceptance for proposals that are so inhumane and so brutal, it is first necessary to dehumanise and then demonise the people to whom those words refer. That is why the public are invited to regard migrants as some sort of amorphous collective menace and a threat to our way of life and our wellbeing, rather than the truth, which is that they are an assembly of some of the most wretched people on the earth, who have undergone unimaginable horror and have stories to tell that most of us would never wish to experience.
Let us be honest: the problem of small boats is one entirely of this Government’s making. For years, they have been playing a game of grotesque political whack-a-mole, in which the hammer of Government policy has come down on the heads of the world’s most vulnerable people every time they try to find a route through to the shores of this country. We have got to a situation where the legal routes are now so non-existent or so limited that most people have simply no alternative but to put their lives in the hands of the people smugglers on the shores of France. The truth is that until and unless we open up those safe, legal routes, this problem will continue.
The Government’s novel approach to the increasing number of people claiming asylum is now simply to make it illegal to claim asylum in the first place. That is a grotesque and absurdist logic that Franz Kafka himself would be proud of. I have heard a lot of Conservative Members talk about criminal gangs. Let me tell you this, Madam Deputy Speaker: if I was organising an organised criminal group and I was engaged in people smuggling and modern-day slavery, I would be rubbing my hands in glee at these proposals, because they alter the balance of power between these criminal gangs and the people they oppress by removing the redress and the rights that people have when they come to this country.
Finally, there is a lot of talk about how many millions this is costing. Getting rid of the cost is quite simple: process the applications and allow people to work and pay taxes while they are being considered. That would solve the problem overnight.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am very grateful for the chance to say a few words in this debate. This is an issue that has been raised with me repeatedly on the doorsteps in Wolverhampton North East, and it is of importance to my constituents. I am really disappointed about some of the language we have heard from Opposition Members. My constituents are not without compassion and my constituents are not xenophobic, and to paint their concerns as coming from a very bad place is very disappointing.
The inability of Opposition Members to accept that we have to limit the numbers of asylum claims we process and accept into the country astounds me and my constituents. Evidently resources are limited, and we face a global migration crisis. The moral case for stopping the boats cannot be denied, and I do not hear that. A fair and just asylum system does not mean one that relies on a person’s physical fitness and ability to scramble across a continent and pay a people smuggler. A fair and just asylum system means that the most vulnerable are given the chance to claim asylum, not young men climbing into boats.
In Syria we took people from the border of a warzone. We took older and disabled people, pregnant women and those who could not make the journey. We must recognise that this is a difficult Bill to put forward. It is not a fluffy huggy bunny Bill, but in this situation we have to come to this place and make difficult choices. We need a limit, but the Bill opens more safe and legal routes for people in the greatest—[Interruption.] With a quota that we will set in this place. We will have the opportunity to decide the number of asylum claims that we process each year. I welcome the Bill and hope it works, but overwhelmingly there is a case for looking at why we have the migration crisis. It is a case for more foreign aid and for better trade links; it is a case for lifting those countries out of poverty, and ensuring that they are stabilised. That is a global problem, and the whole western world should be uniting to attempt to make progress on that. But I will not be lectured by people who, when we say we have to have a pragmatic limit on numbers, shout “shame on you, shame on you” at the Home Secretary. That is not worthy of debate in this place.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I wonder what our international partners across the globe are thinking about this Bill and this discussion, and about the fact that we are acting like a bunch of Poundshop Ukippers. Whatever happens with the Bill, I feel totally ashamed. I am ashamed as a Member of Parliament to be thinking that in the mother of all Parliaments. We are all elected; we all represent constituents with differing views, and we are talking about the best way to deny people—some of the most deprived and desperate people in the world—the right to come to this country.
It is an absolute outrage. This Bill should not, under any circumstances, see the light of day. It really shouldn’t. It pains me to say this, but there have been some decent contributions from Conservative Members, who I have lots of respect for. But my goodness there has been some rhetoric. And I will not take any lectures on rhetoric, because what has been said tonight is that every hotel—nearly every hotel—in the UK is now full of refugees. What a load of nonsense coming from the Conservative Benches.
They also referred to a number of other issues. Don’t not talk to me about compassion. It is only a matter of months since the previous Home Secretary wanted to have wave machines to blast these people back on to the shores of France. We have a situation in a Brighton hotel where 137 kids are missing. Don’t talk to me about compassion. We are talking about real people here. It is absolutely essential that we do not get into a number crunching game about the nitty gritty of looking after people. Be proud. Of course we are proud to be British. Be proud and stand firm on behalf of these people. Put these people before politics. Recover some semblance of humanity. Scrap this ghastly toxic Bill and support some of the most desperate people in the world.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
The public expect action on small boats and illegal migration. The main issues raised with me are illegality, asylum seeker hotels, and safe and legal routes. I will come on to those points in a moment.
It is clearly extremely dangerous and not sustainable to have 45,000 people arriving across the channel in small boats, many of whom are paying people smugglers. It is not sustainable for our own communities, housing and services. Many councils, including Labour councils, say that they absolutely cannot cope and are not able to take additional people at the moment. The Stroud public also know that this is an international issue, something that is often lost in the debate online. It is an international issue and it has a very serious national security bent, too. I find that, away from social media, all the yelling and the noise of shouting down anything—literally anything—that the Government try to do on this issue, people really understand that the Government have to do absolutely everything they possibly can. Given that we are legislators, it is not a surprise that we are going to try to legislate.
On hotel accommodation, my constituents know that I have worked really hard and been very careful not to use my social media or my platform to draw attention to hotels or to asylum seekers in our county of Gloucestershire. Given the attacks on various hotels and places around the country, I do not think it is fair or responsible to communities to do that. Instead, I have spoken to people directly. I have held meetings and I have had police down to particular parts of my constituency. I have spoken before about my disappointment and anger that hotels have been placed in inappropriate areas that we know will cause difficulties. The hotels have to close and I want to hear more from the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) about when that will happen.
On safe and legal routes, like many of my constituents I of course want to see safe and legal routes that are controlled. Unfortunately, that term has become quite nebulous. We have to nail down what it means. The reality is that the safe and legal route policy should work transparently alongside the Bill. It is good that it is referenced, but we need to have that transparency. I want to know whether my right hon. Friend will consider creating a super clear, simple, and safe legal route policy. I look to the recent leader in The Spectator, which talked about the simple policy of a safe route being created for each illegal migrant who is returned. That is gloriously simple and I think it would deal with a lot of the concerns of the public. I think it would also pull the pants down from the Opposition.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
We can agree or disagree with Gary Lineker on his choice of words, but he was perfectly entitled to say what he did about the vile incendiary language of the governing party, who have spoken of refugees as invasions and swarms, and how he sees the parallels with the rhetoric of 1930s Germany. What he expressed was a cry out: a warning from history. We remember the horrors of the past in order to learn the lessons in the present and ensure they are never repeated.
In their desperate bid to hold on to power and distract from their disastrous handling of the economy, where working people have seen their standards of living decimated under 13 years of austerity, the Tories are, at very best, playing culture war cards. They are trying to distract attention away from their failures by using the age old far right strategy of scapegoating and dehumanising the most desperate of people, pointing the finger at them to say, “They are the cause of our problems,” as was explained by the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms). With breathtaking disregard for basic humanity, Ministers are now determined to deny refugees their most fundamental human rights. They are not even trying to hide it—it is explicit on the face of the Bill.
The Home Secretary has been advised that the Bill will, more likely than not, be found to breach the European convention, but nevertheless she told the House that she was confident that it was compatible. That is either gross stupidity and incompetence or much, much worse. We should worry about a Home Secretary who admits to dreaming of expelling refugees to Rwanda and who has used such disgraceful language as “invasion” to describe the arrival of refugees by the English channel.
The UK did the right thing by responding to Putin’s war crimes with the Homes for Ukraine scheme, but how is the plight of the people involved any different from someone fleeing Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen? Do they not feel pain? Did they not lose their homes or have loved ones killed in plain sight? Do they not deserve our compassion and assistance? It beggars belief that the Government claim to be compassionate. The Bill is not compassionate; it is cruel, heartless and wicked and goes against any claims they have of providing a welcome sanctuary to refugees. As we are one of the prime architects of and signatories to the conventions on refugees and human rights, this evil Bill brings shame on this House and on this nation. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to vote against it tonight.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
For my constituents, the Bill is long awaited. They want us to crack down on the horrific people smugglers, stop small boat crossings, remove those who have no right to be here and deny asylum to those who illegally cross our borders from safe countries.
People voted in overwhelming numbers in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire to take back control of our borders, and they expect this Government to deliver. Stoke-on-Trent has done more than most to welcome those in the greatest need—more than 1,000 refugees and asylum seekers have now been accommodated, not to mention the Ukrainians and others who have been taken in by local families having arrived as a result of Putin’s barbaric war. But we can only take so much. There is certainly no room for chancers from safe countries who are paying big money to shameless smugglers to play the system.
Small boat smuggling is unfair, immoral and unsustainable. The pressure on local health services, schools, social services and the third sector has been significant. I welcome the new Home Office hub in Stoke-on-Trent, which will help to clear the backlog of cases. For too long, all the accommodation pressures have rested on a small number of authorities—including Stoke-on-Trent—defined as resettlement areas, in a “Hotel California” scheme that is supposedly voluntary but with no ability to leave. We were forced to accept totally unsustainable numbers, often in totally inappropriate locations.
I am pleased that the Government have listened and taken action to ensure a more equitable distribution across the country but, ultimately, action is needed to reduce the overall number entering the UK illegally in the first place. I welcome the Bill and the measures announced by the Prime Minister both in December and last week. Unprecedented pressures necessitate unprecedented actions. The actions in the Bill will break the people smugglers’ model. I hope that they will be properly resourced and implemented.
The Home Office must restore our confidence in its ability to deliver, particularly on detention and removal. There is an abundance of determination on that on the Front Bench, which I hope is shared across Government. It is vital that we ensure that the measures are legally watertight and do not face ongoing challenges by Labour-backed lawyers, as we have seen with Rwanda. Everything possible must be done to ensure that the Bill is incontrovertible. We will not enjoy the support of the general public unless we tackle these issues.
The Bill is about fairness and ensuring that illegal migrants cannot jump the queue. It is about ensuring that we never again allow the generosity and compassion of the British people to be abused by unscrupulous people smugglers and bogus claimants.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We have heard a shamefully grim level of debate from some Government Members. The debate has lacked compassion and logic, but I want to start on a positive. Last night, something truly historic happened: Ke Huy Quan became the first east and south-east Asian actor to win an Oscar. He said:
“My journey started on a boat. I ended up in a refugee camp….They say stories like this only happen in the movies…This is the American dream.”
Why is that story of success not a British dream, especially when people such Mo Farah have had a similar experience, filling stadiums, smashing records and being wrapped in a Union flag? Why is that hope and aspiration crushed before it even starts? Because of fear and failure —13 years of Tory failure, to be exact; a failure to provide any sense of international leadership or to negotiate workable deals with other countries. And at home, this Government are making 40% fewer asylum decisions a year than they were in 2015, leaving 160,000 people waiting in limbo for much longer and pushing up accommodation costs. This immigration Bill is based on fear—the fear of the Prime Minister and Home Secretary losing a grip on their own party.
People of faith often speak about the opposite of fear—hope. And they have spoken out against the Bill. The Board of Deputies has shared its concerns and, earlier today, I met members of the Jain community, whose focus is on compassion for all living things, not on this. Last June, all the bishops in the House of Lords signed a letter raising alarm about the Rwanda policy. Today, the Archbishop of York joined the Muslim Council of Britain and 350 other charities and faith organisations to condemn the Bill, saying it was “immoral and inept”.
Normally, that level of criticism would make a Government stop and think, but we are not in ordinary times. Instead, we have yet another Prime Minister who is so desperate to stay in power and keep the Conservative party together that he is willing to tear a country apart. That is the base level of the Bill—the Government blaming others and reaching for unworkable, inhumane covers for their own wretched failure.
My grandparents’ generation, which fought in the war, will not be fooled, and neither will generation Z. Last week, Luton Sixth Form College celebrated its culture day, which was beautiful, exciting and harmonious. Those young people know that there is strength in diversity, not fear. That is true strength. What we hear today is fear, the only card that this clapped-out Conservative Government have left to play. As our faith communities, the generation that fought against division and hatred, and our young people all know, Britain is so much better than this Bill, and our country is so much better than the Conservative Government give it credit for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It is obvious that not everyone will get in. The final speakers—they know who they are—have said that they will try to take two minutes, which means that I can get four more speakers in. David Simmonds will lead the way.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Away from the noise and heat, there are a number of elements of the Bill that are to be welcomed and that have had cross-party support in the past. They include the principle of a cap, which we already operate with our resettlement schemes; the principle of consultation with local authorities to determine the capacity that the country has to accommodate newly arrived refugees; and, in particular, the focus on early and swift decision-making. In my view, those are strong reasons to support the Bill this evening.
Clearly, the focus will be mainly on areas where there is a need for improvement, and I will simply highlight two such areas. First, there is a need to clarify the interaction between clauses 15 to 18 of the Bill and the Children Act 2004. There is a long history of the Home Office taking a view about the primacy of immigration legislation, simply for it to be overturned on judicial review by the courts, which take the view that duties contained in the Children Act come first. We need to ensure that this legislation is watertight, and that it will serve the interests of unaccompanied children in a way that is practical and operable.
Finally, the key weakness I see at the moment, which we need to address, is the lack of a permission stage for those wishing to claim asylum in the UK. If people wish to work, get married or study here, they have to apply for a visa before they travel to the UK, then we decide to whom we will issue visas and how many we are going to issue. In respect of asylum, there is no such process of control. My argument to the Front Bench and to the Government is that we should introduce an asylum visa. We would give ourselves genuine control over who arrives in the UK, how many people come, in what numbers and where they go, and avoid the risk of both a free-for-all and the legal challenges that are a significant peril for the Bill.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Last year, child poverty nearly doubled, workers’ wages fell at the fastest rate in decades and there was a more than 25% jump in people sleeping on the streets, while our schools and hospitals continued to crumble with their funding slashed. These are the crises that grip our country, but instead of addressing them, the Tories focus on this: whipping up fear and hate, demonising people who flee war and torture and whose only supposed crime is wanting to rebuild their lives in Britain.
This Bill is not really about stopping the boats. No one believes it will do that. It is about scapegoating. It is about diverting attention. It is about pretending that the crisis we face is people arriving in dinghies, not growing poverty and inequality. It is about pretending that the challenges our constituents face are not due to soaring bills and a collapsing NHS but due to refugees. This Bill is really about divide and rule. It is about the Tories’ plan to get ahead in the polls and desperately cling to power, even if that means breaking international law and throwing refugees under the bus. I do not think anyone believes that this Bill will work on its own terms. I do not think Government Members believe it will work.
The real problem is the terms that the Bill sets. These are not boats that we are legislating on, but people. They are people the vast majority of whom have their asylum claims accepted once they are here, and who are taking this route because the Government have closed safe routes for refugees and refuse to create new ones.
This is really a crisis of compassion. It is a crisis of solidarity that has been created by those at the top. A decade ago it was David Cameron who called refugees a “swarm”; today the Home Secretary uses the far-right language of an “invasion”. Instead of pandering to the right-wing press and attacking the rights of refugees, let us defeat this Bill and actually address the real sources of the problems in this country.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I will continue the trend of highlights without commentary. Of the 45,000 people who crossed the channel illegally in 2022, we know that 27% were Albanian and 74% were males under 40, as the Home Secretary highlighted earlier. That is on top of the hotels that have been costing us up to £6 million per day, putting our public services and our NHS under great strain.
Today’s debate is actually about fairness. We are a fair country and a welcoming country, as we have shown with Ukraine, with Syria, with Afghanistan and with Hong Kong—with the 89,000 people from Ukraine and 18,900 from Afghanistan. This is a humane policy, tackling the people smuggling gangs responsible for the deaths in the channel, which cannot continue. We must make processing times shorter and we must clear the backlog for the genuine refugees. That is what today’s Bill is about, so I welcome the plans to tackle it and I welcome the wider package of measures—not just the Bill, but everything else we are introducing.
Some people want to make this about the ECHR and whether we stay or leave. That is a debate for another time, but I think all hon. Members will agree that that is a better reason to make this legislation work. Show that we can control our borders—that is my challenge to the Opposition. Vote with us today and show that it can be done. But this is an Opposition who have shown patronising views of countries such as Rwanda, who have campaigned to drag murderers off flights and who want open borders, blanket approvals and amnesties for those who are cheating our system. I support this legislation 100%.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Government have failed to build a system that takes on the refugee and migrant-related challenges of this century, shows compassion to those who so desperately need it and deals with the very small number of people who seek to exploit it. Let us not forget that stopping the boats once and for all can be attained only by calling time on the criminal gangs that seek to exploit the most vulnerable. Nothing in the Bill addresses that issue. This Government have no interest in penalising the perpetrators; they are more concerned with playing to the gallery, even if that means pursuing a cruel and impractical policy that they themselves know will not work.
The Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. It is a hallmark, pure and simple, of a desperate Government who have long run out of ideas in their last-ditch attempt to cling on to power. This Government are seeking to use wedge issues to drive division in our society and mask their fundamental failings in every other aspect of public life. That is the reality facing our communities after 13 years of failure by this Conservative Government, and it is not the fault of refugees.
I am proud that my city of Liverpool, as a city of sanctuary, plays its part in the support of the most vulnerable from overseas—people who have fled violence, persecution and genocide. The Bill does nothing to deal with criminal gangs, nothing to assist the victims of modern slavery, and nothing to address returns agreements—and so much more. It is time to scrap this Bill, go back to the drawing board, and build a system that will deliver for the British people and those seeking refuge from overseas.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Because this has been such an incredibly well-subscribed debate, in the time available to me I will not be able to thank all my hon. Friends individually for their excellent contributions, so I hope they will forgive me for thanking them all collectively. I also want to thank some Conservative Members for their excellent and insightful contributions, particularly, of course, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
I am old enough to remember a Conservative Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), standing at that Dispatch Box and promising the House that her new Nationality and Borders Bill would
“deter illegal entry to the UK…break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 706.]
Fast-forward two years, and scroll your way through a few more Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries, and here we are again having to listen to the same old reheated rhetoric and empty promises. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The Conservative party likes to claim that it stands for secure borders, but when the last Labour Government left office in 2010, fewer than 10,000 people were waiting for a decision for a claim for asylum. The number now stands at more than 160,000, the highest since records began. Conservative Members will also recognise that the number of failed asylum seekers being returned has decreased by an astonishing 80% since 2010. The reality is that, since 2010, successive Conservative Governments have lost control of our borders, and the people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank.
Another bit of nonsense being peddled on the Conservative Benches is that this Bill will stop the boats. Everyone agrees that the small boat crossings must be stopped. Thousands of people are risking life and limb, and it is utterly appalling that the people smugglers are making millions from this trade in human misery. The fundamental question is whether the measures in the Bill can reasonably be expected to solve the problem, and the answer to that question is a clear and resounding no. In fact, if the Bill were passed, it would actively make matters worse by adding further to the enormous asylum backlog, and by piling further cost on to the staggering £7 million-a-day hotel bill that is currently being picked up by the British taxpayer.
The Government can label channel crossers “inadmissible” or “illegal” all they want, and they can promise that they will be detained and swiftly removed until the cows come home, but the fact is that Ministers are completely unable to answer two obvious and vitally important questions: “Detained where?” and “Removed to where?” Rwanda is a non-starter because the Rwandan Government can only take 200—and how on earth are the Government planning to send asylum seekers back across the channel unless we have a formal returns agreement with the EU to replace the Dublin convention? Ministers tried all this last year: under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, they made 18,000 people inadmissible, and how many did they remove or return? Twenty-one. Let me therefore encourage Ministers to drop their obsession with chasing tabloid headlines, and to focus instead on prioritising measures which will actually work.
That brings me to the final myth that needs busting: the idea that we on these Benches have somehow not been putting forward our own proposals. Every single time the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary and I have come to this Dispatch Box, we have set out exactly how Labour in government will tackle the small boat crossings and fix an asylum system that has been utterly broken by 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference, but it appears Conservative Members have not been paying attention, so let me remind them of our plan.
First, we will scrap the unaffordable, unworkable and unethical Rwanda scheme, and redirect all that wasted taxpayer money into resourcing a 100-strong elite cross- border police unit to relentlessly pursue the real enemy—the ruthless criminal gangs and traffickers—and ensure that we tackle this upstream, working with the French and across Europe to defeat the gangs.
Secondly, we will negotiate a returns agreement with the EU as a matter of urgency. Successive Conservative Governments since 2016 have focused on trashing relations with our European partners and allies, so the Prime Minister has a mountain to climb in rebuilding the trust that will be required as the basis of securing a returns deal. We wish him well, but the reality is that it is going to take a Labour Government to pick up the pieces and succeed where this Government have so badly failed.
Thirdly, we will introduce long overdue measures to get a grip on the decision-making process for asylum claims. We will clear the backlog once and for all by establishing an effective triage system and by reversing the absurd and incomprehensible decision to downgrade the seniority of key Home Office officials. Fourthly, while the Government do little more than pay lip service to the idea of safe and legal routes, we will act to fix the current resettlement programmes, including the broken Afghanistan pathways.
It is time to let the grown-ups back into the room. Three years ago, many people who had never voted Tory before put their trust in this Government because they wanted secure borders, controlled migration and competent governance, but absolutely none of those things has been delivered. So it is little wonder that the country has had enough of a Government who cynically bring forward Bills that are far more about scapegoating and slogans than they are about solutions, and it is little wonder that it has had enough of a Government who know that they cannot stand on their record and who are instead planning to fight the general election on a platform that is all about stoking anxiety, fear and division.
The good news is that the British people are not stupid. They watch as Conservative Ministers blame everyone else for their own failures: they blame the civil servants; they blame the lawyers; they blame the European Union and the ECHR; and they even blame the football pundits. But our constituents know exactly where the buck stops. They know that the day is approaching when they will be able to vote for a Labour Government who will tackle the small boats crisis and deal with the myriad other challenges and crises that our country is facing after 13 years of Tory failure, and they know that that day cannot come soon enough.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
This has been a passionate debate characterised by many excellent speeches, and I commend among others on my side my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for a series of outstanding speeches. I commend none more than my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall), who said that his constituent had told him:
“I implore you to vote to stop this vile trade…and you and your fellow MPs can make it happen.”
He spoke for the country.
As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made clear, we must stop the boats and secure our borders. Our approach is guided by that most British of values: fairness. The present situation is anything but fair. Ours is a generous and compassionate country and we will continue to offer sanctuary and refuge to those fleeing persecution, conflict and tyranny, but we will not accept mass illegal migration to our shores, orchestrated by people smugglers. It is for that reason that we are introducing this Bill today, to address this challenge once and for all.
Let me start by addressing some of the important points that were raised, first by those hon. and right hon. Members who have argued for the exclusion of children and families from the scheme or the detention powers. This is a difficult and sensitive topic, but let me be clear: we cannot allow women and children to be used as pawns in the people smugglers’ despicable trade. I have seen for myself the depravity of the people-smuggling gangs. There is no low to which they would not stoop. They have no regard for human life. If we were inadvertently to create an incentive to split up families and to encourage adults to make false claims, there is no doubt in my mind that the people-smuggling gangs would do it. That is why we will handle this issue with the sensitivity it deserves, but we will also ensure that we break the evil people smugglers’ model.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) both spoke powerfully about the modern slavery frameworks they forged and the need to protect genuine victims. We agree. The Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery and to supporting victims, and it is for that reason that we want to prevent abuse. Just 6% of detentions ending in 2019 involved a modern slavery referral, rising to 53% in 2020 and 73% in 2021. We have to defend the modern slavery architecture by reforming it and ensuring that it is not open to abuse.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the shadow Home Secretary, spoke eloquently, but she could not bring herself to say that those crossing the channel in small boats are illegal or that it is wrong to break into our country.
Robert Jenrick
No, I will not.
Nor could the shadow Home Secretary explain what these migrants, the overwhelming majority of whom are young men, fleeing through Greece, through Italy, through Germany, through Belgium, through the Netherlands and, indeed, through France are actually fleeing. She lamented the absence of a European replacement for the Dublin agreement, but she failed to mention that just 1% of the UK’s transfer requests were granted in 2020 and that, year after year, we took back more people than we transferred. She did not provide one credible proposal to stop the boats, which should come as no surprise because, when Labour announced its five missions, stopping the boats did not even feature. Labour has literally nothing to say.
The right hon. Lady was sensible enough not to say it, but her Back Benchers betrayed the real views of the Labour party. They queued up, one after another, to dismiss the perfectly reasonable concerns of the British public as “racist” and “fascist.”
And from the SNP we heard what can only be described as performative compassion. In her 25 minutes, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) did not mention the fact that Scotland accounts for 8% of the UK’s population but hosts only 1% of all migrants in initial and contingency accommodation. In fact, there are more migrants housed in contingency accommodation in Kensington than there are in the entirety of Scotland. The SNP’s message is clear: “Refugees welcome, but not in SNP Scotland.”
Let me be clear that this country will always provide support to those in need, and nothing in this Bill will ever change that. As we have seen with the 500,000 people who entered this country in recent years on humanitarian visas—more than at any time in our modern history—this country believes in dealing with migrants with dignity, but it also believes that there is no dignity in the dinghies. There is no humanity in the people smugglers, and we have to break their business model. That is why we brought forward this Bill.
There is a simple choice before us. Is it for the British Government or for the people-smuggling gangs to decide who enters this country? On this side of the House, we believe that, without border controls, national security is ultimately compromised, that the fabric of communities begins to fray and that public services come under intolerable pressure. Although we should always be generous to those in need, we believe there are limits to the support we can provide. It is Members on this side of the House who are on the right side of the moral debate. It is clear that, for that reason, we will stop the boats, we will secure our borders and I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day Clauses 37 to 51; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those clauses | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
Second day Clauses 2 to 5; the Schedule; Clauses 6 to 36 and 52 to 58; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; Clause 1; remaining proceedings on the Bill | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day. |
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 27 March 2023 - (27 Mar 2023)
22:03 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 67 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:31 - divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:43 - divided: - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 133, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) A suspensive claim, or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim (only as permitted by or by virtue of this Act), shall be the only means through which a removal notice may be challenged.
(2B) Accordingly, other than claims identified in (2A), there shall be no interim relief, or court order, or suspensive legal challenges of any kind, available which would have the effect of preventing removal.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 76, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert—
“(a) a protection claim,
(b) a human rights claim, or
(c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”
Amendment 77, page 40, line 22, after “a country or territory” insert
“where there are, in law and in practice—
“(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;
(ii) sufficiency of protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;
(iii) protection against refoulement;
(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention.
(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure; and
(vi) if found to be in need of international protection, a grant of refugee status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention and”.
This amendment changes the definition of a “third country”.
Clause stand part.
Clause 38 stand part.
Amendment 78, in clause 39, page 41, line 19, leave out “not”.
Amendment 79, in clause 39, page 41, line 22, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Amendment 134, in clause 39, page 41, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must declare as inadmissible any human rights claim, protection claim, application for judicial review, or other legal claim which is not a suspensive claim or an appeal in relation to a suspensive claim, and which, if successful, would have the effect of preventing the removal of a person from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
This amendment intends to ensure that the only way to prevent a person’s removal is through a successful suspensive claim, as defined in clause 37.
Amendment 80, in clause 39, page 41, line 37, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Clause 39 stand part.
Amendment 81, in clause 40, page 42, line 10, leave out from “and” to the end of line 16 and insert
“decide whether to accept or reject the claim.”
Amendment 82, in clause 40, page 42, line 17, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 83, in clause 40, page 42, line 30, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence that there is a real risk”.
Amendment 84, in clause 40, page 42, line 34, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 85, in clause 40, page 43, line 1, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 86, in clause 40, page 43, line 3, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 40 stand part.
Amendment 87, in clause 41, page 43, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 88, in clause 41, page 43, line 28, leave out “compelling evidence” and insert
“evidence on the balance of probabilities”.
Amendment 89, in clause 41, page 43, line 31, leave out from the start of paragraph (b) to the end of subsection (5).
Amendment 90, in clause 41, page 43, line 40, leave out “8” and insert “21”.
Amendment 91, in clause 41, page 43, line 42, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 41 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 42, page 44, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in the case of a serious harm suspensive claim—
(i) the grounds in section 84(1) or (2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or
(ii) the grounds that the person is a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking;”.
Amendment 93, in clause 42, page 44, line 25, leave out
“contain compelling evidence of such ground”
and insert
“set out the grounds for appeal”.
Amendment 94, in clause 42, page 44, line 27, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 95, in clause 42, page 44, line 30, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 96, in clause 42, page 44, line 34, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“whether to allow or refuse the appeal”.
Amendment 97, in clause 42, page 44, line 41, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 42 stand part.
Amendment 98, in clause 43, page 45, line 14, leave out from “considers” to the end of subsection (3) and insert
“there are reasonable grounds to believe that the claim is not bound to fail.”
Amendment 99, in clause 43, page 45, line 20, leave out
“there is compelling evidence that”.
Amendment 100, in clause 43, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 43 stand part.
Amendment 101, in clause 44, page 46, line 4, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 102, in clause 44, page 46, line 5, insert at end
“or if the risk of serious and irreversible harm faced by the person is such that the claim ought to be considered despite it having been made after the end of the claim period”.
Amendment 103, in clause 44, page 46, line 6, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 104, in clause 44, page 46, line 10, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 105, in clause 44, page 46, line 12, leave out “compelling” and insert “good”.
Amendment 106, in clause 44, page 46, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) set out the good reasons for the person not making the claim within the claim period, and”.
Amendment 107, in clause 44, page 46, line 18, at end insert
“unless the Upper Tribunal considers that an oral hearing is necessary to secure that justice is done in the particular case”.
Amendment 108, in clause 44, page 46, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 109, in clause 44, page 46, line 30, leave out “4” and insert “7”.
Clause 44 stand part.
Government amendment 67.
Amendment 41, in clause 45, page 47, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) In cases where subsection (2) applies to a person who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim, that claim may no longer be considered inadmissible.”
This amendment stipulates that where a person has successfully made a suspensive claim against their removal from the UK, any asylum or human rights claim made by that person can no longer be classed as inadmissible.
Government amendment 69 and 68.
Clause 45 stand part.
Amendment 110, in clause 46, page 48, line 1, leave out subsections (3) to (10).
Clause 46 stand part.
Amendment 111, in clause 47, page 48, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 112, in clause 47, page 48, line 41, leave out “23” and insert “28”.
Amendment 113, in clause 47, page 49, line 7, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 114, in clause 47, page 49, line 11, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Amendment 115, in clause 47, page 49, line 18, leave out “7” and insert “10”.
Amendment 116, in clause 47, page 49, line 22, leave out “7” and insert “14”.
Clause 47 stand part.
Amendment 117, in clause 48, page 49, line 32, leave out “or refuse”.
Amendment 118, in clause 48, page 49, line 35, leave out “or refuse”.
Clause 48 stand part.
Amendment 119, in clause 49, page 50, line 17, leave out from “provision” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“to ensure compliance with interim measures indicated by the European Court of Human Rights as they relate to the removal of persons from the United Kingdom under this Act.”
Amendment 122, in clause 49, page 50, line 30, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not make provision so as to deny or undermine the binding effect of such measures on the United Kingdom under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
This amendment would recognise that the UK is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and would ensure that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine this. This amendment is consistent with recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report on the Bill of Rights Bill.
Clause 49 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause 50, page 51, leave out line 21.
Clause 50 stand part.
Amendment 179, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out from “must” to the end of subsection (1) and insert
“within six months of this Act coming into force, secure a resolution from both Houses of Parliament on a target for the number of people entering the United Kingdom each year over the next three years using safe and legal routes, and further resolutions for future years no later than 18 months before the relevant years begin.”
This amendment seeks to enhance Parliament’s role in determining the target number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 177, in clause 51, page 53, line 3, leave out “maximum” and insert “target”.
The purpose of this amendment is to set a target, rather than a maximum, number of entrants through safe and legal routes.
Amendment 180, in clause 51, page 53, line 6, leave out “making the regulations” and insert
“securing the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 179.
Amendment 173, in clause 51, page 53, line 7, after “authorities”, insert—
“(aa) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
(ab) the Scottish Ministers,
(ac) the home affairs select committee of the House of Commons,”.
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of consultees on setting the target for the number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 176, in clause 51, page 53, line 12, leave out “exceeds” and insert
“is greater or less than 10% of”.
The purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to explain the reasons why, if the target for entrants through safe and legal routes is not met.
Amendment 178, in clause 51, page 53, line 17, after “exceeds” insert “or falls short of”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 176.
Amendment 137, in clause 51, page 53, line 29, at end insert—
““Persons” means a person over the age of 18 on the day of entry into the United Kingdom;”.
This amendment would exclude children from the annual cap on number of entrants.
Amendment 72, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert
“under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 149, in clause 51, page 53, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) Regulations under subsections (1) and (6) must come into force no later than three months from the date on which this Act comes into force.”
This amendment seeks to require that regulations to establish the cap on the number of people permitted to enter the UK via safe and legal routes must be in effect by three months from this Bill’s entry into force.
Clause 51 stand part.
Government new clause 11—Judges of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal.
Government new clause 12—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
New clause 3—Refugee resettlement target—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make an order by statutory instrument setting an annual target for the resettlement of refugees to the United Kingdom.
(2) An order under subsection (1) must set an annual target of no fewer than 10,000 people.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target, by order, each year of at least 10,000 people.
New clause 4—Humanitarian travel permit—
“(1) On an application by a person (“P”) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(b) P’s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(c) there are serious and compelling reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), in deciding whether there are such reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker must take into account—
(a) the extent of the risk that P will suffer persecution or serious harm if entry clearance is not granted;
(b) the strength of P’s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(c) P’s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under subsection (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in subsection (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under subsection (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to subsection (1) has effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under subsection (7), that person is deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) In this section—
“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);
“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“persecution” is to be construed in accordance with its meaning in the Refugee Convention;
“protection claim” in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove them from or require them to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention (“the Refugee Convention”);
(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(c) under Article 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 (“the European Convention on Human Rights”); and
“serious harm” means treatment that, if it occurred within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under Article 2 or 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (irrespective of where it will actually occur).”
New clause 6—Safe Passage Pilot Scheme—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument establish a humanitarian travel permit scheme.
(2) The scheme under this section must come into operation within 3 months of the date on which this Act is passed and must remain in operation for at least 12 months.
(3) The scheme under this section must permit persons from designated countries or territories (see subsections (3) and (4) below) to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of making a claim for asylum immediately on their arrival in the United Kingdom.
(4) The regulations under subsection (1) must designate countries or territories from which nationals or citizens may be considered for humanitarian permits under this section.
(5) Countries or territories designated under subsection (4) may include only countries or territories from which the proportion of decided asylum claims which have been upheld in the United Kingdom in the 5 years before the date on which this Act is passed is at least 80 per cent.
(6) Regulations made under subsection (1) are subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an evaluation of the humanitarian travel permit scheme under this section not later than 15 months from the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 7—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.
(5) In this section, “family members” include—
(a) a person's parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) a person's spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) a person's child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) a person's sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
New clause 10—Safe passage visa scheme—
“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament statements of changes to the immigration rules to make provision for a safe passage visa scheme (referred to in the remainder of this section as the “scheme”).
(2) The purpose of the scheme referred to in subsection (1) is to enable a qualifying person to travel safely to the United Kingdom in order to make an application for asylum (within the meaning given by paragraph 327 of the immigration rules) or a claim for humanitarian protection (within the meaning given by paragraph 327EA of the immigration rules).
(3) A person is a “qualifying person” for the purposes of subsection (2) if the person—
(a) is present in a member State of the European Union when the person makes an application to the scheme;
(b) is not a national of a member State of the European Union, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland; and
(c) would, on securing entry to the United Kingdom, be able to make—
(i) a valid application for asylum in accordance with paragraph 327AB of the immigration rules; or
(ii) a valid claim for humanitarian protection in accordance with paragraph 327EB of the immigration rules,
which would not be clearly unfounded.
(4) For the purposes of determining whether the conditions in subsection (3)(c) above are satisfied, the following are disapplied—
(a) the conditions in subsections (4) and (5) of section 80C of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; and
(b) the duty in section 2(1) of this Act.
(5) Changes to the immigration rules made under this section must also make provision for—
(a) applications to the scheme, including—
(i) identification of the relevant gov.uk webpage through which applications must be made;
(ii) the provision of relevant biometric data by the person;
(iii) the supplying of relevant information and supporting documentation related to applications;
(iv) confirmation that applications will be without cost to applicants; and
(v) provision for legal aid in relation to applications made to the scheme;
(b) any additional suitability requirements for applications to the scheme, including matters referred to in Part 9 of the immigration rules;
(c) entry requirements for those granted entry clearance under the scheme, including the requirement that the person be provided with a letter by the Secretary of State confirming that the person can enter the United Kingdom;
(d) limitations on the entry clearance granted under the scheme, including provision that clearance is provided solely to enable the person to make an application for asylum or a claim for humanitarian protection and requiring that such an application or claim be made immediately on entry into the United Kingdom; and
(e) appeal rights for those denied entry clearance under the scheme, including legal aid to be made available for persons making such appeals.
(6) The scheme referred to in this section is to be specified as a “safe and legal route” for the purposes of regulations referred to in section 51(6) of this Act.
(7) In this section “immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971.”
New clause 13—Safe and legal routes: regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations specify safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom.
(2) The routes specified must include—
(a) any country-specific refugee and resettlement schemes already in operation on the day this Act is passed; and
(b) safe and legal routes additional to those in subsection (2)(a).
(3) The regulations must set out which routes specified under subsection (2)(b) are available to—
(a) adults, and
(b) unaccompanied children.
(4) The regulations must make provision about—
(a) who is eligible to access the routes specified under subsection (2)(b); and
(b) the means by which such persons may access the routes.”
New clause 17—Safe and legal routes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within six months of the date on which this Act is passed lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) all safe and legal routes which individuals from relevant countries may take in order to apply lawfully for asylum in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the numbers of applicants in each of the last five years who have followed each of those safe and legal routes.
(2) The report must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) A person originating from a relevant country may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless a safe and legal route from that country has been set out in a report under subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of this section “relevant countries” means—
(a) every country or territory not listed in the Schedule; and
(b) in relation to all applicants other than men, those countries listed in the Schedule in respect of men.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out a comprehensive list of safe and legal routes to the UK from countries not listed in the Schedule, as the latter are by definition countries the Government considers “safe”. A person could not be removed from the UK to a country not listed in the Schedule unless a safe and legal route from that country to the UK exists.
New clause 19—Refugee family reunion—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulations and control ) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person—
(a) granted refugee status or humanitarian protection,
(b) resettled through Pathways 1 or 3 of the Afghan Resettlement Scheme, or
(c) who is permitted to enter the United Kingdom through a safe and legal route specified in regulations made under section 51(1) (see also subsection (6) of that section).
(3) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—
(a) parent, if the person was under the age of 18 at the time they made an application for protection status within the meaning of subsection (4) in the United Kingdom, including adoptive parent;
(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18
(ii) aged 18 or over and dependant on the person;
(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of the child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) For the purpose of subsection (3)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child is to be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention of the Rights of the Child.”
New clause 23—Asylum processing for low grant-rate countries—
“(1) Within 60 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from low grant-rate countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
(2) Within this section, “low grant-rate countries” are defined are countries with a grant rate for asylum applicants below 50% in the 12 months preceding the initial decision being taken.”
This new clause requires the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from safe countries.
New clause 24—Safe and legal routes: family reunion for children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act enters into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the ‘immigration rules’) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provision for regulation and control) to make provision for the admission of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from European Union member states to the United Kingdom for the purposes of family reunion.
(2) The rules must, as far as is practicable, include provisions in line with the rules formerly in force in the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation relating to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
This new clause seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members in the UK, in line with rules previous observed by the UK as part of the Dublin system.
New clause 25—International co-operation—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which the Illegal Migration Act 2023 comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament a framework for new agreements to facilitate co- operation with the governments of neighbouring countries, EU Member States and relevant international organisations on—
(a) the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have made protection claims declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State;
(b) the prevention of unlawful entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(c) the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries;
(d) securing access for the relevant authorities to international databases for the purposes of assisting law enforcement and preventing illegal entry to the United Kingdom; and
(e) establishing controlled and managed safe and legal routes.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) “neighbouring countries” means countries which share a maritime border with the United Kingdom;
(b) “relevant international organisations” means—
9. Europol;
10. Interpol;
11. Frontex;
12. the European Union; and
13. any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to consult with.
(c) “relevant authorities” means—
(i) police forces;
(ii) the National Crime Agency;
(iii) the Crown Prosecution Service; and
(iv) any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(d) “international databases” means—
(i) The Eurodac fingerprint database;
(ii) the Schengen Information System; and;
(iii) any other database which the Secretary of State may see fit to include within the definition.
(e) “controlled and managed safe and legal routes” includes—
(i) family reunion for unaccompanied asylum- seeking children with close family members settled in the United Kingdom; and
(ii) other resettlement schemes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a framework on new agreements to facilitate co-operation with the governments of neighbouring countries and relevant international organisations on matters related to the removal of people from the United Kingdom.
New clause 26—Equality Impact—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an equality impact assessment of the measures in sections 37 to 51 of this Act with, in particular, an assessment of the extent to which people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 will be particularly affected by the changes to legal proceedings and by the cap on numbers of entrants using safe and legal routes.”
Government amendment 66.
Amendment 73, in clause 57, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(o) section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 74, in clause 57, page 57, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) until regulations specifying safe and legal routes have been made under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations].”
Amendment 75, in clause 1, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(i) establishes and defines safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally.”
Amendment 131, in clause 1, page 2 , line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect to notwithstanding any judgement, interim measure or other decision, of the European Court of Human Rights, or other international court or tribunal; and notwithstanding any international law obligation.”
The intention of this amendment is that the provisions of the Bill should operate notwithstanding any orders of the Strasbourg court or any other international body.
Amendment 132, in clause 1, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.”
This amendment would disapply other provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in addition to that already disapplied by clause 1(5) of the Bill.
Sir William Cash
I voted for the Bill on Second Reading because it was most emphatically going in the right direction, but I emphasised that we wanted to be sure that it would actually work in the national interest by preventing illegal immigration. The Bill is getting better with the amendments proposed by the Government today, for which all credit to the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister. The number of Back Benchers who are supporting our constructive amendments, including mine, is growing.
This Bill to stop the boats is both legally and politically necessary, because illegal migration is out of control, partly because of a failure to distinguish between genuine refugees and others who are illegal and economic migrants. This is not only a real problem in the UK; increasingly, it is a real global and European problem as well, as can be seen from the dreadful tragedies in the Mediterranean in the last few weeks and months.
This legislation sets out a fair regime for dealing with people who have arrived here illegally. It gives them a reasonable but limited ability to raise any exceptional reasons as to why it is unsafe for them to be sent to Rwanda or another safe country. These are known as suspensive claims, and they are clearly defined in clause 37. Those claims ensure that we are compliant with our international obligations and that we would not send somebody overseas if they were not medically fit to fly or if they would face persecution in the destination country.
The success of this scheme depends on it working predictably and quickly. Those who come over on small boats need to know that they will not be able to stay here and that the vast majority of them will be removed to Rwanda or elsewhere. If courts intervene in unexpected ways, it removes the deterrence and the whole scheme breaks down, along with our ability to control our own borders.
However, this is also a procedural, legal and judicial issue, because under the Human Rights Act 1998, the UK courts have not been given suitable guidance by Parliament via statute to draw the appropriate boundaries that are needed in the national interest. As I pointed out on Second Reading, for example, the international refugee convention does not apply between the UK and France, because France is not a country where asylum seekers fear persecution, yet the European Commission is by all accounts refusing to make legal changes to EU law to allow returns of illegal asylum seekers from the UK to France. There are also provisions setting out other named safe countries. I ought to remind House what happened when the Dublin regulation was torn up by Angela Merkel and 600,000 or so refugees were allowed to pour into Europe.
When the Human Rights Act was passed in 1998, I was in the House of Commons. Human rights lawyers and activists claimed that the Act was a “constitutional Rubicon” enabling the courts to override parliamentary sovereignty. This was a massively overstated and exaggerated claim that is refuted by clear statements, which I hope those on the Labour Front Bench will take on board, made by the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in the House of Lords on its Second Reading on 3 November 1997. He said of the legislation:
“It maximises the protection of human rights without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.”
He also stated that
“the remedial action will not retrospectively make unlawful an act which was a lawful act—lawful since sanctioned by statute.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]
But the question remained: what does statute provide?
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, that was demonstrated when we had the case of prisoner votes and Jack Straw, who took through the Human Rights Act, supported my motion to give instruction to the Government to get by exactly that issue.
Sir William Cash
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In that context, “takes into account” is what the courts have to do with respect to the convention, but not necessarily to obey the Court. That is precisely what happened there.
In the House of Commons during the passage of the Human Rights Act, the Home Secretary Jack Straw made similar observations. The Government rejected giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament, which was being considered. This was a Labour Government rejecting giving the courts the power to set aside an Act of Parliament. He stated that this was because of
“the importance which the Government attaches to Parliamentary sovereignty”.
The White Paper at the time made that abundantly clear, even in respect of declarations of incompatibility by the courts, and furthermore made it clear that declarations of incompatibility would not necessarily lead to legislation.
I was glad to note, in principle, clause 1(5) regarding the application of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. In the context of parliamentary sovereignty, it is clear from the pre-eminent authorities that, in respect of section 3 of the Human Rights Act, any suggestion of a limitation of Parliament’s sovereign will would be permissible only to the extent that in doing so the courts give effect to the intention
“reasonably to be attributed to Parliament”
in enacting section 3. It must surely be clear to all of us, in the case of illegal immigration, that Parliament would never intend to condone illegality or criminality.
This analysis that I have put forward as to the interpretation of the Human Rights Act clearly requires further discussion with the Government. Furthermore, the pre-eminent authority also states that
“the Courts are thus not empowered to construe legislation compatibly with the convention at all costs”
and must not cross the constitutional boundaries, which would include not endorsing illegality.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, expounding a very Anglocentric view of sovereignty, but I will leave that to one side for the moment.
Is it not a legal flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument that at least some of the people who come to this country in small boats come not as immigrants but to seek asylum? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says this Bill
“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how…compelling their claim may be”.
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that?
Sir William Cash
As I just said, I believe it is very important properly to protect genuine refugees. The problem we have been presented with over the last couple of years or so is that it is blatantly obvious that quite a significant number—I cannot put a precise figure on it, but it is very substantial and runs into the tens of thousands—have a serious case to answer in respect of their status.
Joanna Cherry
Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman, the facts simply do not support what he is saying, because the majority of people arriving in small boats who have had their asylum claim resolved have had their claim granted. That is the evidence.
Sir William Cash
That is certainly the case, but it is equally the case that we have 160,000 unresolved asylum cases. It is also true that there is no persecution in France on this account.
As the Government have rightly said, the Labour party voted against the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, wants to scrap the Rwanda deal and opposes the Government’s Bill to detain and remove people swiftly from the UK. This amounts to demonstrating that the Labour party is in favour of open borders and is not on the side of the British people, who want us to deal with this problem.
The current Leader of the Opposition, in an article in Counsel on 9 January 2015, wrote, contrary to what the former Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary said, that the sovereignty of Parliament has nothing at all to do with the Human Rights Act. He clearly does not understand what the sovereignty of Parliament is, or the enactments and case law involved. Quite clearly, the statute itself was not intended to lead to circumstances in which illegal migration is not prevented but almost encouraged, to the profound detriment of practical control over our borders.
I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill in December 2021 that had a clearly expressed “notwithstanding” formula. The amendment was strongly supported by Conservative Back Benchers and would have greatly helped to ensure the flights to Rwanda. With this new Bill, we have a further opportunity to tackle the problem of illegal migration. This Bill is necessary because of the smuggling and criminality of the unscrupulous gangs that exploit migrants and cause death.
In addition, because of the consequences of the failure to control illegal migration, we have endured monumental expenditure of up to £6 million a day, disruption to local services, hotels, health services and social housing, and instances of criminality. It does no good to perpetuate a situation with such adverse consequences for our constituents and our voters, and the Government understand that.
Indeed, I am confident that, when the Bill is enacted, the courts will apply it and court procedures will be adapted accordingly, provided the intention of the words used in the Bill, as enacted, are clear, express and unambiguous, as I propose. It is not appropriate for the current situation to continue to the point where, as I have indicated in the past, the number of illegal migrants is growing exponentially.
My amendments, and further discussion with the Government, are conducive to resolving the issues properly, fairly and reasonably—with an appeal system and other measures, as I shall mention in a moment, and in line with domestic and international law—and to removing the unintended and unexpected legal consequences of the Human Rights Act and the courts’ rules in respect of illegal migration in small boats, which together have led to the breaching of our borders on an unprecedented scale. That is emphatically not in our national interest, and it was not anticipated when the Human Rights Act was originally passed. My amendment would ensure that what Parliament intends actually happens.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I hope that colleagues will bear in mind the fact that I cannot put time limits on speeches during Committee stage. I will prioritise those Members who have amendments on the Order Paper. I call the shadow Minister.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I start by reiterating the point that I made in closing the debate on Second Reading: we on the Labour Benches are absolutely clear that we must bring the dangerous channel crossings to an end, and that we must destroy the criminal activity of the people smugglers. Indeed, Labour has a five-point plan to do just that. It is a plan based on common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, as opposed to the headline-chasing gimmicks that are the stock in trade of those on the Government Benches.
Our opposition to the Bill—and our introduction of the amendments on which I am about to speak—is based on the fact that it will serve only to make it harder for the Government to achieve their stated aims. The central premise of the Bill is that it will act as a deterrent by banning the right to asylum and replacing it with blanket detention and removals policies. For a deterrent to be effective, it must be credible, and the Bill fails the credibility test because there is nowhere near enough capacity to detain asylum seekers in the UK, there is no returns agreement with the EU, and the Rwandan Government are agreeing to commit to take only thousands at some unspecified future date. That means the boats will keep on coming, the backlog will keep on growing, and the hotels will keep on filling, all of which leaves the House in the somewhat surreal position of debating a Bill that everyone knows is not really worth the paper on which it is written, and yet we must all go through the motions and pretend that we are participating in a meaningful process.
Nevertheless, I assure you, Dame Rosie, and the entire House that Labour Members will do all that we can to amend and improve the Bill in a concerted effort to limit the damage that it will inflict on the international reputation of our country, on the cohesion of our communities, and on the health and wellbeing of those who have come to our country in the hope of sanctuary from the violence and persecution from which they are fleeing.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Gentleman implying that Labour Members will not oppose the Bill any further on these matters, because they want to improve and enact it, but no more?
Stephen Kinnock
I think I was crystal clear that we oppose the Bill. It will be entirely counterproductive and make all the challenges that we face worse. Labour Members believe in supporting legislation that addresses the substance of an issue rather than one that chases tabloid headlines.
The competition for the most absurd aspect of this entire process is pretty stiff, but the programme motion is a strong contender. Ministers in their infinite wisdom decided that we should debate the second half of the Bill on the first day, and the first half on the second day. Whatever the rationale for that, I suppose that there is something strangely appropriate about the idea that we should consider the Bill back to front given that so many of its provisions put the cart before the horse.
The other point that I wish to make at the outset is that the refusal of the Home Office to publish a full set of impact assessments ahead of Second Reading—and they still have not been published—is completely unacceptable. Surely, as a matter of basic respect for this House and for our constituents, Members should be entitled to expect to be given the opportunity to have an informed debate, based on comprehensive assessments of the impact that the Government expect their proposals to have.
The fact is that the Government’s entire handling of this shambles of a Bill has been utterly chaotic, while Ministers’ statements have generally been incoherent, inconsistent or simply incomprehensible. I spoke earlier in my point of order about the Government’s conjuring up statistics to suit their needs that have now been rubbished by the statistics watchdog. However, we are where we are, and on that basis I will move on to consider some of the substantive issues.
It is with regret that, given the time available, I will have to limit my remarks to our own Front-Bench amendments tabled on behalf of the Opposition. I begin with our new clause 25, which sets out how Labour would approach these matters if we were in government, in order to deliver meaningful progress on a range of issues, from border security, to authorised safe routes, as part of a comprehensive strategy to stop the crossings and keep people safe, in line with our international commitments. In particular, new clause 25 calls for a multifaceted overarching strategy for securing the agreements with international partners that our country urgently needs.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We have already come to agreements with international partners and we are signing more all the time—a new deal with the French, a new deal with the Albanians—but we have had 480,000 asylum places granted here since 2015. How many hundreds of thousands more people does the hon. Gentleman want coming to the country?
Stephen Kinnock
It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman’s notice that when the botched Brexit negotiations took place we left the Dublin convention, which is crucial for returns. We have to find a deal that replaces it. That is about protecting our borders, because it is about returning people when their asylum claims are not successful.
A strategy for securing Britain’s borders must begin with a clear and honest recognition that we cannot solve these problems unilaterally. This is a collective international issue that requires a collective international solution, so closer co-operation with our nearest friends and neighbours must be our starting point and our No. 1 priority. That means urgent action, which will be taken forward from day 1 of a Labour Government, to negotiate a returns agreement with the EU to replace our previous participation in the Dublin system.
That is just the start, however. We also need to restore access for our law enforcement agencies to the treasure trove of information—from biometrics to travel history—that Eurodac and other databases provide in support of efforts to ensure that the removal of asylum seekers from the UK to safe EU countries is possible.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Out of interest, the Labour party talks about safe and legal routes, so does it support a cap on the numbers coming through those routes? If so, how would it prioritise refugees, bearing in mind that there are hundreds of millions of people across the world who would like to move here and could conceivably get refugee status?
Stephen Kinnock
Yes, we do support a capped scheme for safe and legal routes, and it has to be based on prioritisation according to, for example, high grant rate countries and family reunions.
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is all very well, but the reality is that those on the Government Benches have completely burned every relationship with our partners and allies across continental Europe and, as a result, we have left the Dublin convention. There is a direct connection between the massive surge in numbers coming on small boats and the Government’s botched Brexit negotiations.
Solving these problems also means establishing formal working arrangements to put the UK at the heart of international efforts to crack down on our real enemies here, the people smugglers, by relentlessly hunting them down and ensuring that they are brought to justice. The Labour party has set out a more targeted approach than the Government are currently undertaking; we would recruit a cross-border specialist unit in the National Crime Agency to go after the criminal gangs upstream, working with French experts and Europol. Finally, it means working closely with our European friends and allies to develop new safe and authorised routes from EU countries to the UK for those who are most in need of our help.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about making more safe and legal routes available and has suggested he would be supportive of a cap. At what level would he support such a cap, and what would he do to manage those people who continue to arrive once that cap was exceeded?
Stephen Kinnock
I do not know how many negotiations the hon. Lady has been in, but people do not generally go into negotiations by putting all their cards face up on the table. It is absolutely clear that a deal has to be done with the European Union. We do not do that deal from the Dispatch Box; we do it with hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, none of which the Conservatives are capable of. That is why they need to get out of the way so that a Labour Government can fix the problem.
Clause 51 stands as evidence that vague promises from Ministers are not to be taken seriously. I find it particularly telling that, in drafting the clause, the Government were not even able to come up with a definition of a “safe and legal route” or how one should work. Nor do they appear to have any idea of who such routes should apply to, when the measures might be introduced, how many people would be included or exempted from the cap, or who—other than local authorities —the Government may consult. The Opposition’s amendments would address those challenges.
On Second Reading, I said that under this Government, Ministers had done
“little more than pay lip service”—[Official Report, 13 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 640]
to the principle of authorised safe routes for refugees and others in protection. I stand by that assessment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the shadow Minister agree that, when it comes to honouring statements that we have made, we have an obligation towards those from Afghanistan who served alongside British soldiers? Some are in the system but are yet to be processed. Would the shadow Minister ensure that those from Afghanistan who are stuck in Pakistan and in Syria get here as asylum seekers, which is very much what they are?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The performance on the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme has been abject. Under pathway 2 of that scheme, 22 Afghans have come over in the last year. They are being told that they can come only once they have accommodation, and they are being treated with a total lack of respect when we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition amendment to which he has referred gives the lie to the argument put forward by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, more recently, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) that we on the Labour Benches support open borders in all circumstances?
Stephen Kinnock
That is one of the many myths that the Conservatives peddle—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right—and those myths need to be debunked. It is absolutely clear that the small boat crossings have to be stopped, but the key point is that the Bill will not achieve that objective. Our new clause 25 would actually put some flesh on the bones of something that might work, rather than chasing headlines and doing government by gimmick.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
The hon. Gentleman must give up on his ridiculous argument that this Government have not taken safe and legal routes seriously. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been issued since 2015. In Europe, we are second only to Sweden for resettlement; in the world, we are fourth only to Canada, the United States and another for UNHCR-sponsored humanitarian schemes. Some 45,000 people have come across on family reunion visas. We need no lectures on playing our part as a generous and compassionate country.
Stephen Kinnock
Of course, the Ukraine scheme, the British national overseas scheme and the Afghan scheme—when it used to work—are very welcome; there is no debate about that. But I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman keeps making that point. That is not the point of this debate; the point of this debate is how to address the challenge that we currently face. As hon. Members have pointed out, many people are fleeing war and persecution in the world, and this Government have utterly failed to offer them safe and legal routes. As a result, they come by unauthorised routes—that is a simple fact of life. The other point, of course, is that the Government have allowed the backlog to get completely out of control. The idea that they are making life better and easier for people fleeing war and persecution is for the birds.
I also want to mention areas in which Members on both sides of the House are broadly in agreement, not least because the list is quite short. The Opposition support the principle of Parliament’s having a say each year on the quota or cap for safe and legal routes, as envisaged by clause 51. Every country has a responsibility to do its bit, alongside other countries, to help those fleeing persecution and conflict. However, we also believe that the Government’s policy on safe routes cannot begin and end with caps alone.
The Bill presents us with a rare opportunity to have a serious debate about how best to live up to our international commitments to offer protection to those most in need, especially those fleeing persecution and war. The fact that so many detailed, well thought through proposals have been put forward by hon. Members in amendments and new clauses speaks to the depth of cross-party support for making safe routes work and providing genuine alternatives to dangerous crossings.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely scathing about the Bill, but he will be aware that, as recently as last summer, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change was writing about a solution to the small boats crisis that involved annual quotas, new safe and legal routes, an absolute prohibition on any arrival by a small boat, and only out-of-country rights of appeal. That is identical to what effectively appears in this Bill. It was written by somebody called Harvey Redgrave, who cites himself as the Labour party’s home affairs policy adviser between 2011 and 2015.
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just said, we support clause 51; I do not know whether the hon. Lady was listening. We support the idea of safe and legal routes that are capped. What she needs to understand is that for people escaping war and conflict, the idea of being detained in a deterrence centre that does not exist or of being removed to other countries when no removal agreements are in place is not a deterrent. For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. The Bill has zero credibility because it is impossible to operationalise. That is the key point that the hon. Lady seems to fail to understand.
Stephen Kinnock
I am going to make some progress.
A range of proposals have been put forward, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), who has a record of huge commitment to addressing these matters. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) also have a long history of working diligently on these issues.
The number of new clauses, including one of my own, that seek to build on and expand access to family reunion visas for refugees clearly reflects the high level of support for such schemes among Members on both sides of the House. In speaking to new clause 24 on behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that providing better safe routes for unaccompanied children with family in the UK is not just right from a moral point of view; it will also demonstrate to our European neighbours, whose support on issues from returns to tackling people smuggling is so fundamentally important to this country, that we are serious about making progress in negotiations on the range of issues that I outlined in relation to new clause 25.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that so far the Bill comes with no children’s rights impact assessment? We are desperately concerned about the plight of children.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point about the lack of an impact assessment for children, but there is a broader point about the lack of impact assessment full stop. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that we in this House should now be debating a Bill with no impact assessment having been published in advance. That shows a sort of disrespect to the House that really needs to be put on the record.
I am having to limit my time to discussion of the Opposition Front Benchers’ amendments, so I will not be able to raise my many questions and concerns about some of the provisions on legal proceedings in clauses 37 to 49. Some clearly appear to pose a real threat to due process and to our respect as a country that upholds the rule of law. The entire Bill is shot through with inconsistencies, unresolved questions and bizarre contortions of logic that can only have the effect of worsening the very problems the Government say they are trying to solve.
Just one example of that is highlighted by amendment 41, which I tabled as a means of probing the Government’s thinking on a measure that simply does not appear to have been properly thought through. Clause 45 states that where an appeal against a removal notice is upheld, the duty to remove that person no longer applies—so far, so sensible. The problem is that nothing in the Bill says that any asylum claim made by a person in such a situation would then be considered: those claims would continue to be inadmissible. That means we will end up with situations where there are people who cannot be removed, because a court has ruled that doing so would pose unacceptable risks to their safety, but who also cannot lawfully remain in the UK because of the Government’s refusal to accept their claim for asylum. The law would effectively be saying that a person can neither leave nor remain in this country. If the Minister has an answer to the question of what then happens to a person in that situation, I would love to hear it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points he is making. I want to return to the point about detaining children, however, because we know that under this Government, hundreds of children have gone missing, and for some of them—hundreds, in fact—we still do not know where they are. Is it not right for children who come to this country to be placed immediately under the care of local authorities, which can then put proper safeguarding in place to protect those most vulnerable people?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She points to a broader failing, and to a clear indication of the shambles and chaos that we have within the broader asylum system. The backlog in the system is out of control, there are massive safeguarding issues, and really it is just more grist to the mill for the people smugglers and the traffickers. That is why this issue has to be addressed.
To sum up, this is a dog’s breakfast of a Bill, and this debate feels like something of a charade, because everyone knows that not only is the Bill unworkable, but it is not even intended to work. Nevertheless, we hope that colleagues across the House will support our amendments and new clauses in the Division Lobby this evening, because let us be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: Ministers know full well that this Bill is an entirely counterproductive piece of legislation, but they do not really care. In fact, they will be more than happy to see it failing, because then they can blame our civil servants, the EU, the lawyers, the judges, the Labour party, the football pundits, or whoever they can think of.
Why are the Government doing this? Well, the answer is staring us in the face: they know that come the general election, they cannot stand on their record of 13 years of failure, so instead they will whip up division, stoke anxiety and fire up the culture wars. Our constituents know where the buck stops, though. They want solutions, not soundbites; they want the Labour party’s common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy, not government by gimmick; and when this Bill fails, they will know that only a Labour Government’s five-point plan for asylum will stop the dangerous crossings, fix our broken asylum system, and get our country back on track after 13 years of Tory failure.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Forgive me: I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate that when we are in Committee, it is customary to either call me by name or address me as Madam Chair, rather than Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a very common mistake, don’t worry; I should have reminded Members at the beginning of the debate.
I call Tim Loughton.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Thank you very much, Dame Rosie. I rise to speak to six amendments that stand in my name and those of right hon. and hon. colleagues: new clauses 13 and 19 and amendments 72 to 75. I am glad to hear the Minister refer to his support for safe and legal routes, because that is the basis of these amendments. I look forward to some warm words from him later on.
This is a very heated subject and a very controversial Bill, so I will start with something that I hope we can all agree on: coming across the channel in small boats is the worst possible way to gain entry to the United Kingdom. We need to be ruthless against the people smugglers who benefit from that miserable trade. We want to continue to offer safe haven for those genuinely escaping danger and persecution, and in a sustainable way. That is why safe and legal routes are the obvious antidote to that problem. The migration system, as it stands, is broken. Whatever we think about this Bill, it is only one part of the solution that we need to bring forward, and the Home Office needs to beef up the processing times and the removals of those who do not have a legitimate claim. We also need more return agreements.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Do the French authorities know who the people coming over here to seek asylum are, or are they just wandering around France unknown, as well as when they come here?
Tim Loughton
The reality, as the Home Affairs Committee found when we were last in Calais in January, is that the French authorities do not arrest a lot of the people trying to cross the channel; they turn a blind eye. These people are therefore not registered and the authorities do not have a record of who many of them are. They only show an interest in arresting and recording somebody who has come from a country with whom they have a returns agreement, where there may be a reasonable chance to return them. Otherwise—surprise, surprise—the French authorities’ problem becomes our problem if those people then get into boats.
Those are things that I hope we all agree with across the House, whatever our stance on this Bill. We also need to challenge some assumptions. Not all asylum seekers coming across the channel have a credible asylum claim. We are told, “Other countries do more,” but when we look at the totality of the issue, and the amount of people to whom we offer safe haven and support outside of the United Kingdom in refugee camps—those people who just want to go back to their own countries—it is more generous than virtually any other country in the world. We need to look at the totality.
Coming to the UK is not always the appropriate solution for many people. The resettlement schemes that we have generously operated already, particularly with regard to Ukraine and Hong Kong passport holders, are potentially huge. In the case of Hong Kong, it could be up to 2.9 million people. We have also heard the criticism from the French that we are too generous. They describe us as “El Dorado”, which is why so many refugees apparently want to come across to the UK.
The other reality is that even if we wanted to, we cannot take an unlimited number. The fact that almost 10,000 Afghan refugees legally brought here after the airlift from Kabul in the summer before last—more than 18 months ago—are still in hotels is testament to the fact that we have an accommodation problem. Whatever we come up with, we need a system that is disciplined, orderly and sustainable so that we can make sure that people are processed quickly and put in appropriate accommodation, because hotels for young children for a sustained amount of time, be that with their families, let alone on their own, are frankly just not the most appropriate place for them to be.
Wayne David
Is it appropriate, in the hon. Gentleman’s view, that former RAF camps are now being used and planned to be used for migrants?
Tim Loughton
None of this is ideal, but when people arrive in their hundreds—one day last summer it was more than 1,000—and all of a sudden become the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government, there is a practical limitation on what accommodation is available physically to house them. That is why our hotels are being taken over and are full and why various military bases have been used, with mixed success. It is why the Government are having to look at other solutions. However, we have a serious problem accommodating our own constituents, as we all know, because of the shortage of local authority accommodation, and we just have to be realistic about how we can properly look after people coming across the channel.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
This is not just about illegal migration. The population of this country is growing in net terms, as a direct result of illegal and legal migration, by something like a quarter of a million a year. That cannot long be sustained. Over 10 years it is 2.5 million people, which is the size of many significant cities. That cannot go on, because the housing situation for all of those people is an insuperable challenge.
Tim Loughton
I think I have made the point that whatever migration system we run needs to be effective, efficient and sustainable, but at the same time we need people to fill job vacancies in this country, and many of the people who have come here are self-sustaining. I had a meeting this afternoon with about 60 Hong Kong British national overseas passport holders who came here in flight from Hong Kong, and they are making a good go of starting a second life in this country. However we think we should operate migrant numbers, the numbers are not the important thing. It is being able to look after people safely and sustainably for all of our community that is the major consideration.
The other truth that is put about that we need to challenge is that the European convention on human rights is everything. If we look at the record of the judgments issued under the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights in the last 10 years, we see that 47% of them—almost half—have not been complied with. In certain countries that figure is higher. For example, 61% of judgments again Spain from the European Court of Human Rights have not been complied with, and for Italy it is 58%, while for Germany it is 37%. In many cases—particularly France, where the figure is a little bit lower—they are mostly for non-compliance with immigration laws. So let us not try and kid ourselves that the measures in this Bill are in some way completely absurd and out of court compared with what other countries have been doing.
Having said all that, doing nothing is not an option. It allows people smugglers to continue the human misery. It is condoning bogus asylum seekers, and it is allowing those bogus asylum seekers to bump the queue of genuine asylum seekers to whom we do have a duty of care that the vast majority of people in this country want to see carried out. So we need to get the balance right on continuing our generous tradition of allowing safe haven for genuine asylum seekers escaping danger with much more robust action to clamp down on those who have no legitimate claim to be resident in the UK. They are gaming our system, taking advantage of the UK taxpayer’s generosity and, worst of all, queue-jumping over the genuine asylum seekers who need help.
This is where safe and legal routes and the main amendment I am putting forward today come in, and I will be prepared to press it to a vote unless I have some substantial reassurances from the Government, because this is nothing new and it is not rocket science. It is actually something that the Prime Minister has quite rightly committed to in principle. My new clause 13, which is the basis of the safe and legal routes amendments, would require safe and legal routes to be part of this legislation. The regulations referred to in the Bill would have to set out specific safe and legal routes by which asylum seekers can enter the United Kingdom in an orderly and sustainable way.
The routes specified must include any country-specific schemes that we have already. Specifically, we have routes for Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and Hong Kong, but we need additional ones. Additionality is key to this, because as the Bill stands, the Government could just say, “Well, we’ve got those safe and legal routes, and we can just tinker with those.” However, let us take the example of the 16-year-old orphan boy from east Africa —he is not from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong—who has a single relative legally settled in the United Kingdom. There are precious few opportunities for him to be able to come to the UK on a safe and legal route. It is in such cases that we need to offer an opportunity, capped in numbers and capped with all sorts of considerations. We need to offer such people a realistic opportunity that they may be able to get safe haven in the United Kingdom.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much support what the hon. Gentleman says. Indeed, I support the need for such amendments to this Bill, probing or otherwise, to clarify what a safe and legal route is and how such routes will operate, because that seems to be at the heart of whether this legislation can actually achieve anything that it claims to set out to do. Does he therefore agree with me that we need clarity, because this Bill does set out where it considers it is safe to be from and, by definition, everywhere not listed in proposed new section 80AA is unsafe? We therefore need clarity about what would be a safe and legal route from the locations not listed in that proposed new section, because otherwise we will end up with “safe” or “unsafe” being ill-defined in legislative terms, and that does not help anybody.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I have drawn up new clause 13 and the accompanying amendments in a way that is not overly prescriptive. It puts the onus back on the Government to come up with schemes, some of which will be safe and legal route schemes that we have run before. The family reunion scheme is something we have run for a long time, although it needs to be adapted outside of the Dublin conventions. I have also suggested a Dubs II scheme and, again, the Dubs scheme was very successful in bringing 483 unaccompanied single children from genuine danger zones safely to the United Kingdom. Those are the sorts of examples I mean. They do not need to create something completely new. We need to adapt what we already have.
That is why additionality is key. These need to be routes on which people from outside the four existing resettlement or asylum schemes can come here. The Government must set out those routes for both adults and children—I think most of us would agree that children need to be dealt with slightly differently—and the means by which those people can access those routes. It may be from the countries from which they are fleeing or from refugee camps, in a scheme like those we have had before jointly with the UNHCR. I think that is what has been mooted in the newspapers—it did not come from me—about 20,000 people being able to come here through agreement with the UNHCR, and that is another possibility. It may be through using reception centres that we have in other countries, including France, where a limited number could possibly apply, subject to a cap. Again, that is all for the Government to decide—I do not want to be overly prescriptive.
Bob Seely
As ever, my hon. Friend is making an incredibly interesting and important speech. There have been, in the last decade, 10 safe and legal routes, six of which are country-specific and four of which are general. Of the six, the Syrian one is now shut, but there are two for Afghanistan, two for Ukraine and one for Hong Kong, and there are four other non-specific safe and legal routes. If I understand correctly, he is arguing for a fifth safe and legal route. Can he explain and delineate how that fifth safe and legal route would be different from the other four that we already have?
Tim Loughton
Those four existing routes are country-specific for certain emergency situations that arose—for obvious reasons, Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan and the rather prolonged emergency we are seeing unfold in Hong Kong. There will be other such cases that come up, and I believe the Bill as it stands gives the Home Secretary the power to determine, if there is a new emergency in a certain country and a sudden wave of refugees genuinely fleeing danger to whom the UK Government may want to give a commitment, to enable us to take some of those people, and I think everybody would agree with that. However, in between such a country-specific scheme and the four existing country-specific schemes, the numbers able to come here are minimal. If we look at the just under 500,000 who have come here since 2015, we see that almost 400,000 of those are accounted for by those from Hong Kong and Ukraine alone.
Bob Seely
Apologies if I was not making myself clear. Out of those 10 schemes in the last decade, four are non-country-specific safe and legal routes. My hon. Friend is arguing for a fifth, an additional safe and legal route. While I am not arguing against his case, I am asking how his fifth safe and legal generalised route will be different from the other four we currently have, which are non-country specific. We also have six country-specific schemes, one of which—Syria—has been shut.
Tim Loughton
I think I have given my hon. Friend two examples. The family reunion scheme, certainly in the terms in my new clause 19, is non-country specific. A Dubs II-type scheme is non-country specific. At the moment, if you are not country specific, you have had it, largely, particularly for young children. The numbers, I am afraid, do not add up.
There is another consideration that I should have mentioned earlier. We are told that everything used to be great and fine in terms of us being able to return failed asylum seekers to the EU and that it has all gone pear shaped since Brexit. In the last year that we were covered by the Dublin regulations and still within the terms of the EU, the UK tried to return 8,500 failed asylum seekers to the EU. Of those, 105 were admitted. So it did not work before. This is a long-standing problem, which we have not had any help in solving from our EU partners. That is why we need to take more proactive and robust action now and why the Bill, controversial though it is, is so necessary.
Tim Loughton
I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I will finish my comments.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument for additional safe and legal routes, but the Bill is designed to try to prevent illegal migration. Although I understand that those few people affected by his new safe and legal route may be deterred from illegal migration by the fact that they are part of that scheme, there will still be many other people who will not be. How will creating a few more safe and legal options for a small number of people prevent people coming across the channel who are not affected by those schemes?
Tim Loughton
We are not going to eradicate people coming in boats across the channel totally, unless the French agree to intercept and return them. However, we can limit it to those people who do not stand a credible chance of claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. One problem in the courts at the moment, with the many failed asylum claims that then go through the appeals process, is that there was no other way of getting here, other than on a boat. If the safe and legal route amendment, and everything that goes with it, goes through, that will not be an excuse because anybody could apply through a safe and legal route and, if they are turned down and then turn to a boat, that is not a defence.
Tim Loughton
I will be very indulgent, but I know many other people want to speak.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am very grateful. My hon. Friend makes the most important point in this debate. Judges and tribunal chairs are looking for factual reasons on which to refuse applications. I cannot think of a better one than the availability of, in a controlled way, more safe and legal routes. At the moment, without further action, and without concurrent action from the Government in passing this Bill and creating safe and legal routes, we are opening ourselves up to the risk of more people making those claims and of not being able to control the situation in the way we all want.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend, with his huge legal expertise and experience from his former roles. That is the point. We need to isolate the bogus asylum seekers who are paying people smugglers. We do that by making it clear that we are open to genuine cases of people fleeing danger, and there is a legitimate, practical, and usable route for them. If people do not qualify for that, they should not try to get in a boat because they stand no chance of having their claims upheld if they make it across. I am just trying to achieve a balance. If Members want the Bill to go through, we need to have safe and legal routes in it to make it properly balanced. If you do not like the Bill but you want safe and legal routes, you need to support the Bill to get those safe and legal routes. This is mutually beneficial to those on either side of the argument on the Bill.
New clause 19 outlines how a refugee family reunion scheme would work. It includes a wide definition of close family members, including people who are adopted. Again, this is nothing new but it is a generous scheme that would do what it says on the tin.
Amendment 74 is an important consideration. The Government have said that they want the Bill to go through to be able to clamp down on the small boats. I have no problem with that. There are some things in here that are not quite as moderate as I would like, but I think it is necessary for the Bill to go through so I am trying to improve it. However, the Government have said that they will consult on safe and legal routes—we need to consult on safe and legal routes because local authorities, and others, will bear the brunt of how we accommodate many of these candidates—and then come up with some safe and legal routes. That is not good enough. The two sides of the Bill must be contemporaneous. We must not to be able to bring in these tough measures until those safe and legal routes are operational so people can have the option to go down the safe and legal route, rather than rely on people smugglers.
The Government will say, “We need to consult.” Well, start that now because we need to consult with local authorities about how we get more people out of hotels now and into sustainable accommodation for the long term. The Government should be getting on with the consulting now, so that when the Bill eventually goes through—I suspect it may take a while to get through the other place—those safe and legal routes are up and running and ready to go. So amendment 74 is important.
Amendment 75 would add safe and legal routes as one of the purposes of the Bill in clause 1. Clause 1 is all about clamping down on illegal migration—quite right—but it should also be about the balance of providing those safe and legal routes. I want to put that in clause 1, at the start of the Bill. Amendments 72 and 73 are contingent on all of the above.
That is all I am trying to do. Lots of people are trying to misrepresent and cause mischief about the Bill, and in some cases on safe and legal routes. I will end on my own experience when I appeared on the BBC “Politics South East” two weeks ago. I was talking about safe and legal routes and I was challenged, “Why are you supporting this Bill when you were so keen on safe and legal routes and challenged the Home Secretary?” I said, “Because this Bill contains provisions for safe and legal routes.” It does. It talks about “safe and legal routes”, capping numbers and everything else. The following week on the same programme, with no recourse to me, the presenter read out an email from the Home Office, having got in contact with it, unbeknownst to me, to ask about my claim on safe and legal routes. The Home Office apparently replied:
“Nothing in the Bill commits the Government to opening new safe and legal routes or increasing the numbers.”
That was news to me, news to Home Office Ministers—[Laughter.] Hold on, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) may not be laughing in a minute. I was accused of being misleading. When I challenged that, it turned out that the Home Office communiqué actually said that the routes to be included as part of the approach set out for the new Bill would be set out in the regulations, which would depend on a number of factors, including the safe and legal routes that the Government offered at the time the regulations were prepared and, that, as the Prime Minister said, we would “get a grip” on illegal migration and then bring in more safe and legal routes. So actually that is provided for in the Bill.
The BBC completely misrepresented my comments and, I am glad to say, yesterday issued an apology and gave me a right of reply. Let us stick to the facts. Let us not get hung up on all the prejudice about this. We have a problem in this country, which is that last year just under 46,000 people came across in the most inappropriate and dangerous manner. We do not have the capacity to deal with people in those numbers, many of whom have unsustainable claims, and we have to get to grips with it. The Bill is a genuine attempt to get to grips with that issue. It would be much more palatable and workable if it contained a balance that has safe and legal routes written into it that come in at the same stage. I would challenge the Opposition to say that they have a better scheme for how we deal with this dreadful problem. Simply voting against all the measures in the Bill is not going to help anyone.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Do we support international human rights protections or do we not? Are we steadfast in our adherence to the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and other international treaties we have signed up to, or are we not? To me, it is extraordinary that those simple questions are even apparently subject to debate, but those simple questions are precisely what this appalling Bill is asking of us, including in the clauses we are debating today.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been clear that the Bill breaches the refugee convention. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has written to us all today to warn it is:
“essential that Members of Parliament…prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
Our view is that, because the Bill rides roughshod over international human rights law, it should be scrapped entirely. Short of that, the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and colleagues try to restore at least some level of respect for international law.
This is not only an abstract issue of international law. This is about the Afghan lieutenant we read about in The Independent on Sunday yesterday, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition supervisor as being a “patriot to his nation”. Now he is in a hotel and threatened with removal to Rwanda. It is about LGBT people fleeing outrageous criminal laws in Uganda, whose Parliament last week voted for further draconian legislation, imposing endless imprisonment and even death sentences on LGBT people, as well as on those who do not report them to the police or even rent a room to them. This is all about trafficking victims, victims of torture and many more vulnerable people. The question is: are we committed to meeting our international obligations to those people? For me and my SNP colleagues, the answer must clearly be yes, but the Bill says no.
We therefore absolutely oppose clause 49 and the Government’s attempt to undermine the role of the Court of Human Rights. Clause 49 empowers the Home Secretary to ignore, and even to compel our courts to ignore, interim measures from the Court. It is said to be a placeholder clause, but here we are debating it with only a select bunch of Conservative Back Benchers apparently any the wiser as to what the Government’s intentions are with respect to it. The clause, as drafted, is totally unacceptable, but so, too, is the way the Government are treating Parliament. As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights states in his letter to us:
“interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and their binding nature, are integral to ensuring that member states fully and effectively fulfil their human rights obligations”.
We therefore believe the clause should be taken out, or that either our amendment 119 or amendment 122, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), should be supported to ensure that power is used consistently with the convention. The Prime Minister should stop dancing to the tune of the anti-ECHR minority. He should have the guts to put international human rights before internal party management.
I turn next to safe legal routes, which many amendments and new clauses understandably address. The lack of them and, in the case of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, their poor and slow implementation, is clearly a contributor to irregular arrivals. Expanding them would help to tackle that issue, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) eloquently set out. Clause 51, as it stands, is completely inadequate. It provides for a limit not to be exceeded, rather than providing a target to aim for, and it allows the Home Secretary, instead of Parliament, to set the definition of “safe legal route”. Our amendment 179 and related amendments replace the cap with a target, and a longer-term target too, and seek to improve Parliament’s role in setting that goal and holding the Home Secretary to account for her efforts to meet it. We support other new clauses and amendments that seek to achieve similar aims. We support the various new clauses that highlight particular safe legal routes, such as the humanitarian travel permit, safe passage visa schemes, refugee family reunion and Dublin-style safe legal routes for children in the EU. The key point is, as has been said, that these routes should be a priority and an urgent part of the overall response, not an afterthought to be looked at a little way down the line.
On the remaining clauses relating to legal proceedings, frankly, most of the provisions in the Bill essentially dehumanise people who seek protection here, so that no matter what horrors they have endured, their individual circumstances are to be ignored and their ability to access rights and protections set out in international treaties is to be decimated. Instead, they are to be detained, locked up and either removed or left in permanent limbo. The clauses on legal proceedings buttress that regime by seeking to snuff out the ability of anyone to get to a courtroom to challenge what is going on before their removal takes place.
Stuart C. McDonald
I notice the Minister is listening very carefully indeed.
Why is there a “compelling evidence” requirement? More importantly, is that not totally inconsistent with the test of real risk? That is the point of amendment 83. The danger is that even a probability of “serious and irreversible harm” will not be enough because of the type of evidence that can realistically be provided in the ludicrously tight timescale provided for.
On timeframes, we have various amendments to challenge the time periods that have been formally set out by the Government. The notion that eight days is enough time for an application is for the birds, as we know from the chaotic processes used during previous attempts to remove people to Rwanda, when many who were served notice barely understood what was happening. Language barriers, difficulties in access to solicitors and legal aid, the requirements of prescribed forms and demands for compelling evidence in the application mean that eight days will never happen. Those processes give rise to the risk that even those who could in theory make a challenge will miss out unjustly.
On that very important point, can the Minister provide clarity on how he will ensure that legal advice is accessible and, importantly, what his Government’s position is on the availability of legal aid? Those are hugely important issues that are not really touched on in the Bill.
Given the ludicrously restricted timeframes, the restrictions on “out of time” claims in clause 44 are frightening. Our amendments from amendment 101 onward seek to challenge that. This time “compelling evidence” of a “compelling reason” for missing the eight-day deadline is required. What on earth does that mean? Is an inability to understand the notice, language difficulties or the impossibility of finding a solicitor sufficient? More fundamentally, are the Government saying it is okay to remove someone who is certainly going to face “serious and irreversible harm” just because they were a few hours late with the paperwork and did not have a decent excuse for that? It makes absolutely no sense.
The seven-day timeframe for appeals to be lodged in clause 47 is equally absurd for all those reasons. Again, how will access to legal advice and legal aid be ensured? Who did the Government consult when putting together that challenging timeframe? Why have the Government chosen to bypass the first-tier tribunal? Why are the Government suggesting using first-tier employment law judges to assess difficult issues of removal and serious harm?
Some will have an even more difficult route to challenge a refusal if the Home Secretary decides that a claim is “clearly unfounded”. The clauses do not seem to make any sense. If, as seems to be the case, to make a valid application someone needs to provide compelling evidence of harm, it is difficult to see how any valid application containing such compelling evidence can be deemed clearly unfounded. Going beyond that, the grounds for appeal to the upper-tier tribunal are, again, objectionably difficult. Just to get permission to appeal, compelling evidence of serious or irreversible harm is required, assessed on the papers with no further right of appeal. Our amendments to clause 43 seek to rectify that.
We object to the Bill instructing the tribunal how to do its work, in particular how to make assessments of fact. Judges—not the Secretary of State—should determine what new matters can be considered, and what evidence and facts are relevant to their decisions. Our amendments to clauses 46 and 47 and various other clauses seek to protect the independence of the tribunal. We object strongly to the ouster clause in clause 48, in particular the restrictions on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Amendments 100 and 108 seek to challenge restrictions on onward rights of appeal. These are serious and significant issues of profound importance. Removing the oversight of the courts is unacceptable and unconstitutional. We had a well-developed and functioning system of appeals and judicial oversight. The Government should stop dismantling it. Instead, the Bill will leave most people seeking to assert their rights able to do so only after they have been removed. The notion that such challenges can be successfully undertaken from thousands of miles away is absurd.
The fundamental question is, what happens if someone is successful in making a suspensive case? All that clause 45 states is that they cannot be removed; it does not allow them access to the asylum process or any other assessment of their case. They, like tens of thousands of others who cannot be removed simply because there is nowhere to remove them to, will be left in limbo—a limbo that is disastrous for the taxpayer but life-destroying for the individuals involved. A desperate outcome from a desperate Bill.
Finally, although we support almost all the other amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, we have concerns about new clauses 23 and 25. New clause 23 would require the Secretary of State to use her broad discretion to put in place a fast-track asylum procedure for so-called “low grant-rate countries”. It contains an amazingly wide definition of a low grant-rate country, which would include nationalities where 49% of applicants had successfully sought asylum.
New clause 25 has aspects that are fine, but crucial to what it tries to do are co-operation agreements for the removal of people who have had claims declared inadmissible. However, there is no definition of “inadmissible” separate from the definition in clauses 2 and 4. That goes to the heart of all of the problems with the Bill. We will continue to listen carefully to what is said about those new clauses, but we are concerned that they need further work.
In short, we oppose every aspect of the Bill. We object to the outrageous timeframe for its consideration and to the lack of impact assessment before we debate it. Our amendments try to mitigate some of its worst aspects but, ultimately, it remains an unlawful Bill completely and utterly beyond repair.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 132, which appears in my name. Together with amendments 131, 133 and 134, it has been drawn up with the express purpose of ensuring that our legislation does what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly said should be our priority: stopping small boats and the evil trade that sustains them.
We are fortunate to live in one of the greatest countries on earth. Unless we believe in a literally unlimited right of immigration, in any sane legal order, we in the United Kingdom must have the ability to effectively control our borders. It is only by having such control that we can maintain democratic consent for both legal migration and our system for allowing asylum to those in need, as we have done rightly and generously for those fleeing the repression of the Chinese state in Hong Kong, the bestiality of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the cruelty of Putin’s war in Ukraine. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration said from the Dispatch Box, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been granted by this country since 2015, of which 50,000 came from existing global safe and legal routes.
At the moment, we do not exercise the control to which I alluded a moment ago. Contrary to what Opposition Members may pretend, no amount of operation with the French or investment in our infrastructure at the border—welcome though those things are—can deter people attempting the crossing in the tens of thousands each year.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic point about this nation being hospitable and generous, particularly over the last few years. Does he agree with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) that there is a problem not just with illegal routes and illegal immigration, but that over time we have had more and more legal migration? I am afraid that our population is now rising so quickly that it is fundamentally undermining our ability to provide public services.
Mr Clarke
I certainly believe that, vitally, we will only have democratic consent for legal migration if it is clear that that happens at the behest of and with the consent of this House and, critically, that we do not have an illegal immigration situation that is beyond this House’s control.
The reality is that if we are to effectively deter the evil trade of people smuggling, we need to tackle the incentives. That means making it crystal clear that coming here illegally will lead to swift detention and removal. It is neither compassionate nor sustainable to allow what is an abuse of our immigration system to continue. I can testify that, having sat in meeting after meeting with the Home Office as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the cost to the Exchequer of millions of pounds each day for hotels to house asylum seekers is not something that we should take lightly. That is, in part, why I tabled my amendments.
Bitter experience teaches us that Tony Blair’s Human Rights Act will otherwise act to frustrate the will of Parliament. The Government have therefore rightly drafted the Bill to disapply section 3 of the Act. However, I believe that other sections of the Act will be engaged too, and they should also be disapplied for the express purpose of this legislation. I say that not on my own authority but on that of Professor Richard Ekins of Oxford University and Sir Stephen Laws KC, the former First Parliamentary Counsel. As they argue in their February Policy Exchange paper:
“New legislation should expressly disapply the operative provisions of the 1998 Act, specifying...section 3 (interpretation of legislation), section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action)”.
They go on to say:
“Without legislative provision to this effect, it is inevitable that claimants will challenge the Home Secretary’s understanding of the legislation, inviting the courts either to interpret the legislation to read down her duty to remove persons from the UK (or reading in new procedural requirements) or to declare the legislation incompatible with Convention rights and thus authorising ministers to change it by executive order and ensuring that political pressure would be brought to bear to that end.”
Having disapplied section 3 on the basis that it leaves open the possibility of systemic legal challenge, I can see no legal, philosophical or practical argument against doing the same where a similar risk exists.
Ultimately, we know that our best—and probably only—chance to avoid this legislation being entangled in human rights law is for this place to be absolutely clear and unambiguous about our intentions. My amendment flows in that spirit. We should show the determination now—not after the fact, if and when the fears of many of us in this House have been realised—to make our intentions clear in the Bill.
I wish to speak briefly in favour of amendment 131, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), which has a comparable aim to my amendment in respect of the ECHR. I do so for the reasons set out by the Lord Chancellor at the time that the United Kingdom entered into the convention. He said:
“The real vice of the document, therefore consists in its lack of precision. I should be unable to advise with any certainty as to what result would be arrived at in any given case, even if the judges were applying the principles of English law. It completely passes the wit of man to guess what results would be arrived at by a tribunal composed of elected persons who need not even be lawyers, drawn from various European states possessing completely different systems of law, and whose deliberations take place behind closed doors.”
In a nutshell, that is the risk to which we expose the legislation if we proceed without that protection.
I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take these amendments seriously and work with us, over the course of the crucial weeks ahead, to ensure the legislation respects the will of the House and, I believe, the will of the British people.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
First, I add my voice to the concerns already raised by a number of Members about the lack of an impact assessment, an equality impact assessment and a children’s rights impact assessment, as we commence the Bill’s important Committee stage. In the Home Affairs Committee report on small boats and migration, we made it clear that:
“There is no magical single solution to dealing with irregular migration. Detailed, evidence-driven, fully costed and fully tested policy initiatives are by far most likely to achieve sustainable incremental change that deters journeys such as dangerous Channel crossings.”
So it is regrettable that we do not have all the information, including the costing and the impact assessments, when debating these clauses today, particularly when the Bill is being rushed through the Commons.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady has rightly called for a number of assessments, but is the real test of the Bill not the impact assessment of newspaper headlines? That is all it is about.
Dame Diana Johnson
Unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of confusion in the House about the small boats issue. It is worth reflecting on the fact that currently the largest number of people coming across in small boats come from Afghanistan and that the backlog in the Home Office system—now over 166,000—has been growing for some time, creating a knock-on effect on how quickly the system can deal with people arriving in this country, process them and remove those who should not be here.
It is also worth reflecting on the Home Affairs Committee report on the small boats crisis, published last summer, which said that the Government needed to address four things: clearing the backlog and speeding up the processing of people arriving in small boats; the issue of safe and legal routes, which I will say a little more about in a moment; the need for international co-operation; and the need to deal with the criminal gangs and to have return agreements with other countries in place. I remain worried about the argument that the Bill will deter people from getting into small boats, which goes back to my concern about the lack of evidence.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to the Home Affairs Committee trip to northern France in January. One key thing I remember from that trip is that if someone is standing on the beach in Calais or northern France, with the British coastline visible just 30 miles away, it is too late; they are going to take their chance and get into a boat.
I worry about the Home Office’s capacity to deal with the momentous change that the Bill will bring. It has not been very good at dealing with the asylum applications that have been building for many years, and I worry about its capacity to deal with the large-scale detention of people, families and children that the Bill will introduce.
My amendment 137 is on the issue of establishing a cap on the number of migrants using safe and legal routes. It will be difficult for the House to identify and make provision for crises that will unfold in the year ahead. In 2010, we could not have known the true extent of refugees from the first Libyan civil war or from South Sudan, or the number coming from Syria in 2011 or from Ukraine just one year ago. We cannot know what global challenges we will face in the next year, so an arbitrary target could be seen as a restraint on Governments being able to respond dynamically and appropriately.
Who will be included in the cap, and will it include children? Every child has the right to protection from persecution, discrimination and violence. That is a cornerstone of international and domestic law. Turning away a child fleeing a war zone or a genocide because of a cap decided months earlier in this House, could undermine the key principles of the international child protection frameworks that we have signed up to, including our own Children’s Act 1989, which gives clear focus to our international obligations in domestic legislation. The Government say that clause 51 will allow them to exceed the number set out in the cap each year if needs be. In that case, it is not really a cap, is it? It might be a target, but one that would have difficulty dealing with what is happening internationally.
We should reflect on and acknowledge the willingness of the British people to step up to the plate when crises appear, as thousands did last year when they took in displaced Ukrainians, and the wholesale support for unaccompanied children being given shelter when we debated the Dubs amendment a few years ago. If the Government are determined to introduce the cap, children should not be included and “people”, as set out in the clause, should be defined as those over 18 years of age. Setting a cap on the number of children who can claim asylum could result in one child being turned away while another is chosen—it is a “Sophie’s Choice” regulation. I ask the Minister to think again, and recognise the special position of children and our obligation to them.
The most obvious and appropriate way to support refugee children is to ensure they have access to safe and legal routes, which are clearly set out and defined. That is why I have added my name to new clause 13 and amendments 72 to 75, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I also support new clause 17 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Our Home Affairs Committee report made it explicitly clear that ensuring that there are accessible, safe and legal routes to the UK is a key plank of an asylum system that is both fair and effective, and also provides a clear disincentive and deterrent for illegal routes. I agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the need for additionality. We cannot just say that the current schemes are sufficient, welcome as they are. There must be a package of measures to deal with the current situation, along with clearing the backlog. It cannot be right that that is left until some future date when we will know what the safe and legal routes are. That needs to be up front as part of the Bill, so that we have both the deterrent and the options around safe and legal routes.
New clauses 8 and 10 are about safe passage visa schemes. The Home Affairs Committee report mentioned using reception centres in France to allow people to make asylum claims from France—the Government rejected that idea, but some imaginative thinking about how we can assist people to make claims would be helpful. That is why it is worth the Government considering what new clauses 8 and 10 would mean. We have juxtaposed checks on passports and customs with the French, but there may be more room for negotiations with the French about making claims in France directly. New clause 8 is a little more prescriptive than new clause 10; that might be helpful as well.
I have added my name to amendment 122, which was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). The amendment would clarify our legal responsibilities and fulfil the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Last year’s Home Affairs Committee report underlined the importance of strong international co-operation and relationships in dealing with migration issues. I believe that those would be weakened by walking away from our international legal obligations.
In conclusion, the Government must ensure that the Bill does not undermine our legal or moral obligations. They should clearly establish safe and legal routes in the Bill. If they are determined to tighten our refugee provisions, we must not turn our back on child refugees by arbitrarily placing a cap on, or excluding, those vulnerable children who turn to us for support.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 131, which stands in my name and in the name of colleagues. I am grateful to the Minister and his colleagues for their very constructive engagement in recent days; on the basis of the commitment that I hope we will hear from him this afternoon, I do not propose to press my amendment to a vote this evening. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); I am very glad that he has just returned from his cup of tea, because I am about to make a great speech in defence of parliamentary sovereignty in his honour.
The fact is that we need a new asylum system in our country. Indeed, the world needs a new framework for protecting the rights of refugees in an age of mass migration, with the huge people movements that we are seeing. Part of that is safe and legal routes, which are the natural corollary of the Bill; I support the principle described by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and set out in his amendments to that end. I particularly endorse the work that has gone on in the Home Office—I want to see more of it—around community sponsorship. It is one of the existing global routes that we have, and we want to see it widened significantly. Even more fundamentally, the new framework that we need must honour the founding principle of both the European convention on human rights and the refugees convention: that the primary responsibility for managing asylum rests with the nation state. That is the purpose of the Bill and of my amendment.
It is worth stating why, as part of the new framework that we need, we need a law requiring the removal of people who arrive here illegally. The fact is that even if we had the best safe and legal route in the world, we would still have thousands of people—tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands a year—seeking to come here by unsafe, illegal routes. We simply cannot accommodate all those people. That is why it is absolutely right that this Bill creates a limit, with a cap on the total number of refugees we will receive. What that cap should be is up for debate, but the need for one is clear.
Unless we want open borders—Opposition Members deny that they want them—we have to do something about the many, many people who will still try to come once the cap has been reached. The only logical answer is to deny leave to stay to people who enter illegally, to detain them and to remove them somewhere safe and free: either back to their own country or to a third country that is willing to have them. That process must be swift and unquestioned. Nothing but the certainty of detention and speedy removal will deter illegal migrants and break the business model of the smugglers.
That power of removal was established in the Nationality and Borders Act, but as we know, a judge in Strasbourg was then woken in the middle of the night by a lawyer acting for an assortment of campaign groups. The judge—sitting in his pyjamas, for all we know—issued an interim order that caused the Home Office to stop the policy before the first plane took off.
Joanna Cherry
What the hon. Gentleman has just described is the process of getting an interim injunction in England or an interim interdict in Scotland. Is he not aware that that happens just about every day of the week in our domestic legal systems?
Danny Kruger
The difference is that our domestic legal systems should not be subject to the findings of a foreign court. Moreover, the process should be transparent, it should be possible to appeal and the Government should have been able to be involved in the process. For action to take place in that way is profoundly undemocratic.
Danny Kruger
Let me explain myself more clearly. There are two things profoundly wrong with what happened last June. The first is the explicit tolerance of illegality—the claim by activists, backed by Opposition politicians and by judges, that people who break into our country should be allowed to stay and settle here. The second is the idea that the laws of the British Parliament can effectively be struck down by courts claiming a greater sovereignty, in deference to a higher power than parliamentary statute: the power of international law.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
The United Kingdom has signed up to many international treaties. Why do we sign up to treaties if we are not going to allow them to be implemented or follow them?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this is a treaty to which we have signed up. Under a treaty we have certain obligations, but those obligations do not include obeying such interim orders. There is no legal basis for us to obey them; that is a recent convention, and it is not in statute that we should obey such an order. Moreover, even if it were a substantive judgment, it does not give direct effect to what the British Government do. We need to change these things. That is why this Bill is necessary: it will mandate, not merely permit, the Government to remove illegal migrants, so that there can be no doubt in the mind of Ministers, officials or contractors what the law requires them to do.
Stella Creasy
One of the reasons why Winston Churchill helped to set up the European Court of Human Rights was to protect citizens across Europe, including in the UK, from overbearing Governments who did not have respect for the role of courts in keeping them honest. With the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, let us see some honesty: is he saying that he, in contrast to the Prime Minister, wants us to leave the ECHR? If the amendment were passed, it would mean our having to, and we would be in the same position as Belarus. Will he be honest: does he want us to be Belarus?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady mentions Winston Churchill, who of course had no intention for the UK to sign up to the European convention. It is true that he sent some lawyers over there, but actually the original intention was for the UK not to sign up. There was no need for the UK to sign up to it. We did so, but at that time there were no rule 39 orders. There was no opportunity for judges, in the middle of the night, to issue these interim orders and stop UK policy. That was not the case then, and it should not be the case now.
Even substantive judgments, with which I accept we need to comply—Opposition Members are quite right about that—should not have the direct effect of halting removals. A substantive judgment against the UK would simply start a process of negotiation like the one we had after the Court ruled against us on prisoner voting. My amendment would put Strasbourg and the ECHR in their proper place: as a treaty partner, not a higher power or a superior lawmaker to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members seem to think that the ECHR has a power superior to the sovereignty of this House. I invite them to stand on that platform at the next election: by all means go ahead and suggest that this House is not sovereign.
I come not to bury the ECHR but to praise it. The convention is a noble document—as we know, it was written with the help of British Conservative lawyers—but really it just codifies the liberties enjoyed under English common law and statute. We should not have done so, but sadly we have put ourselves under
“the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court”.
We should not be dictated to when it comes to the control of our borders. I challenge any hon. Member who thinks that the judges in Strasbourg have superior jurisdiction to that of this Parliament. My amendment would restore the proper balance of power.
The heart of the matter, and the reason passions run so high around the Bill, is what kind of country the UK is, or what we think it is. Opposition Members think that this country is a cruel, petty, small-minded small island that ignores its responsibility to the most vulnerable people in the world. That is what they think this country is, but our side of the House does not think so. We know that we have obligations to the world’s refugees and we are determined to fulfil them, but we think the first and foundational principle that defines the UK—the source and basis of all our generosity and our engagement with the problems of the world—is that we are a law-governed nation and that the laws that govern us are made here, in this building, by the representatives of the people. That is the principle that holds everything together. That is why Britain is respected abroad. That is the basis of our peace and prosperity, and our extraordinary history. It is why, directly or indirectly, so many people from other countries want to come and live here, whether they come legally or illegally—because we are a safe, prosperous, law-governed and sovereign nation. No human rights framework, no international convention, can dictate to us that we should tolerate illegality, let alone illegal entry to our country and all the privileges of residence here.
We need, with this Bill, to remember the people who sent us to this place and what they expect of us. They expect us to defend the interests and the values of the law-abiding citizens of this country, and to put the laws that we make here ahead of the interpretation of a foreign court. Statute is sovereign. Parliament is sovereign. The public expect us to have the courage to discharge our duty and take back control of our borders, as we promised we would when we left the EU. I believe the Bill will do that, with some strengthening. I know that the Government share my view, and I look forward to working with them ahead of Report to make the Bill watertight.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), with whom I agree about the source of human rights. Sometimes we need to have an arbiter, a human one, who will prevent us from being our worst selves, and I fear that the Government are being their worst self in this instance. I fear that the Bill, with its flagship title—no pun intended—will not stop the boats. I want to stop the boats, because every person who gets into a rickety boat on the French side of the channel and takes the risk of crossing it is a potential tragedy. We should all want those boat crossings to stop. However, I am convinced that the Bill will do nothing of the sort.
This Bill is dozy and it is dangerous. It is dozy because it will not work and will be counterproductive; it is dangerous for genuine refugees—we will not know who they are unless we seek to assess them in the first place—and it is dangerous for Britain’s reputation and therefore to our power overseas, soft or otherwise, thus undermining our sovereignty. It fails the moral test, not just because of the impact on those who seek sanctuary on our shores, but because it is based on a hysterical and bogus pretext. The context is important here, and so is the language. The fact that the Home Secretary and other refer to the UK’s being “swamped” by refugees is an outrage as much as it is totally and utterly inaccurate. In a league table of European countries, the United Kingdom ranks 20th among those taking refugees, per capita. It takes a third of the number taken by France, and a quarter of the number taken by Germany.
The bogus premise on which the Bill is based is set out clearly and obviously. Intelligent Conservative Members—and I am sure they are all intelligent—understand that, yet they continue to promulgate this nonsense. Nevertheless, language has consequences. Do Conservative Members not realise that when far-right protesters stood on the pavement screaming abuse at some terrified person fleeing persecution and simply awaiting an assessment, that was caused in no small part by the incendiary language used by politicians and people in the media? It is outrageous.
Lia Nici
And I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has given way. Does he not realise that we are in this position because the left wing-supporting lawyers have taken us to this point? When I knock on my constituents’ doors, they ask, “Who is running this country? The Government, we who voted you in, or the left wing-supporting lawyers?” We are in this situation because left-wing extremists are trying to stop our democracy from functioning.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Lady for articulating the case so clearly. When all is said and done, we should ask why we have a problem. I have set out irrefutable numbers showing where we are in the world, and in Europe, in terms of the number of asylum seekers we receive on our shores: far fewer than most European countries, far fewer than many smaller European countries, and an absolute blinking fraction compared with the likes of Lebanon, for instance. Nevertheless, we have a problem, and why do we have a problem? Because the Home Office is dysfunctional.
It is outrageous that there are people sitting in hotels and hostels being jeered at by right-wing protesters, wound up by those on the other side of the House who have used—if I am being generous—intemperate language. Why are there so many people in those places? Because the system is broken. We are not “swamped” by refugees; we have an asylum system run by an incompetent Government, and what is perhaps the most morally outrageous aspect of this whole debate is the fact that these people, whether or not they are genuine asylum seekers—and we will not know whether or not they are unless we blooming well assess them—are being blamed for the Government’s incompetence. What a moral outrage. There is, of course, a case for making changes in the law, and I do not believe in open borders, but what the Government are proposing is uncontrollable borders. As I have said, language has consequences, and we should be careful about how we use it.
Laura Farris
We in the Home Affairs Committee heard from Dan O’Mahoney, the clandestine channel threat commander, that the number of arrivals on small boats with any identifying documents is almost zero, because the people smugglers encourage them to dispense with all “pocket litter”, as he described it—passports, phones and SIM cards—on the basis that it will confuse those at the Home Office and make it impossible for them to distinguish between asylum seekers who are genuine and those who are not. Is not one of the problems experienced by the Home Office the fact that it is confronted with people who cannot prove who they are? Is not that, and the direction given by the people smugglers, at the root of this issue, rather than Government incompetence?
Tim Farron
In which case, the hon. Lady would propose a Bill that aimed to stop the boats and undermine—
Tim Farron
I am trying to respond to the hon. Lady’s first point. [Interruption.]
Tim Farron
If the hon. Lady really wanted to deal with the issue that she has just articulated, she would do something to undermine the business case of the people smugglers. Of course these people are doing what they are guided to do—
Laura Farris
The hon. Gentleman is challenging the Government to pass legislation that requires the arrivals to produce documents. The last Labour Government tried that with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004, which made an asylum claim contingent on the provision of adequate documents. I do not know what has happened to that legislation—perhaps the Labour Front Bencher who winds up the debate can illuminate us—but the truth is that successive Governments have tried to require the provision of identification documents, but 20 years later people are still arriving without them, and are being given asylum on the basis of what the Home Office cannot prove.
Tim Farron
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention, but if she really wanted to achieve that, she would support safe and legal routes. That is the way to tackle those problems. The simple fact is that we are dealing with a political issue. Why? Because the Government have failed to retain control of the asylum process. They do not trust their own process. I believe in assessing people to establish whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not, and then returning them if they are not. I want a system that is fair and tough, but the Government are proposing a system that is unfair and weak.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but we also need a system that is timely and does not leave people hanging on for years and years. The Government say that they have cut the backlog by 50%, whereas the UK Statistics Authority says that it has increased by 777% on the Government’s watch. We cannot have an honest debate when the statistics are so badly skewed.
Tim Farron
Exactly. It is very easy to make the case that the Government are making when these are all faceless people, but a couple of months ago, I met an Afghan citizen in the constituency of my friend and neighbour the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell). This guy had been waiting 13 months to have his case heard. He had been an interpreter for the British forces in Afghanistan, and we had left him behind. His wife and two children were hiding back in Afghanistan, waiting and rotting. That is not due to the fact that we do not yet have the Bill; it is due to the fact that we have a Government who are incompetent and uncaring when it comes to people who have served our country and whom they have let down badly.
Wera Hobhouse
Is not an obvious sign of the Government’s failure the fact that only 22 Afghanistan citizens have been resettled under the Government’s resettlement scheme, while thousands are waiting in danger?
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Lady for making that important and powerful point.
Let us deal with another of the dozy charges aimed at those of us who think this Bill is at best mistaken. We are asked why people would want to come here, escaping from war-torn France. Why do they not stay in France, as it is not a dangerous country? I could make some quips about the current state of play over there, but I will not. Let us remember that 86% of people fleeing their homes go to the neighbouring country and stay there, so only about 14% of refugees go beyond their neighbouring country, and a fraction come to Europe. In case Conservative Members need a geography lesson, we are at the end of the line; we are on the other side of the channel, at the far west of Europe. We are the place that they get to last. We have already established that France takes three times as many refugees as we do.
Yasmin Qureshi
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case. On the question of figures, is this not part of the bogus nonsense being spouted by the Government when the Secretary of State goes on television to say that 100 million people are making their way to the United Kingdom and then someone else goes on television to say that about 1 billion people are making their way to the United Kingdom?
Tim Farron
Yes. There are arguments for stricter or less strict measures for dealing with migration and asylum, and it is important to discuss those, but it does not help when we have bogus nonsense figures being spouted, sometimes in this place. That just creates more heat and no light.
Let us deal with the charge that France is a safe place, that people should not be allowed to come here from there and they should just stay there. France could say that to Italy and Spain—
Tim Farron
I will not give way again, sorry. I have taken loads of interventions and I am testing everyone’s patience; my speech is now 11 minutes in.
France could say the same to Italy or Spain, and then Italy or Spain could say, “Stay in the sea.” What we are seeing now is an attempt to undermine Britain’s part in the globe. We were told by some Conservative Members that we were leaving the European Union but not Europe, and that we would now be “global Britain.” Ignoring for a moment the moral obligations we have to people seeking sanctuary, let us remember what message it will send to our neighbours, friends and allies around Europe and elsewhere if we unilaterally decide that we are not going to play the game. This undermines our soft power and our sovereignty. This is why we support new clause 3, which deals with setting a target and gives a clear sense of Britain stepping up to the plate and being part of a global operation.
The Government talk about deterrence, but the Bill fails to understand the horrors that people have been through. People who have left Sudan or Eritrea often go through Libya, and I would ask Conservative Members to spend a moment to research what it is like for a refugee passing from the horn of Africa, for example, through to Libya and then crossing the Mediterranean. What are their experiences? We tell those people that it will be scary and that we are not going to treat them very nicely when they cross the channel, but that is nothing compared with their experience of crossing Libya. I ask Members to inform themselves about that in particular.
The Bill is clearly not aimed at tackling the criminal gangs. The simple fact is that the criminal gangs’ business model will remain alive and well. Why? Because people will arrive on these shores and then not claim asylum. They will go under the radar, which fuels modern slavery and criminality. More people will be exploited, especially women and girls. There is no question whatsoever that this Bill will do anything to tackle the business model of those gangs—it is clearly not intended to, which is another outrage. It is indeed a traffickers’ charter. It will therefore lead to more deaths in the channel. It is a recipe for uncontrollable borders, because there will be nobody applying for asylum. They will just slip under the radar. If the Government had done an impact assessment, they would know that. Maybe they did, but they have not shared it with us.
The simple fact is that we need safe and legal routes. People from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong stand a chance, one way or another, of having a safe route to the United Kingdom. But if you are a young Christian man seeking to avoid being conscripted in Eritrea, a woman seeking sanctuary from Iran or a person from a religious minority in Sudan, you have no chance whatsoever of getting here. That is morally outrageous. We are turning our back on our long-held principles and obligations. That is why new clause 6 is so important and why, with your permission, Dame Eleanor, we will push it to a vote tonight.
New clause 6 would ringfence asylum seekers from those countries that already have an 80%-plus grant rate—places such as Sudan, Eritrea and Iran. It proposes a pilot scheme for 12 months—this is measured, small and not all that ambitious—just to give the Government an opportunity not to be duplicitous about this and to show that we are at least providing an experimental and evidence-based safe route. I urge the Government to accept the new clause; otherwise, we will seek to divide the House. New clause 4 talks about a humanitarian travel permit, and new clause 7 deals with refugee family reunion.
If the Government seriously want to make the case that the Bill is going to undermine the business case of the people traffickers, evil as they are, they will fail to do so unless they provide meaningful, tangible, credible safe and legal routes. Those routes do not currently exist, and these new clauses allow the Government the opportunity to create them. If they will not accept them, this will prove that they do not have a plan to stop the boats and that they are just getting into the gutter to grub for votes.
To be fair, I think the Government have misjudged those who seek sanctuary here. I have met many of them. I have been to Calais and other places, and I have had to interrogate why people would choose to come to the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Devizes set out many of those reasons, but I have never discovered among those people any who have heard of the national health service or our benefit system. The lie that they are somehow coming over here to sponge off or threaten us is just that: it is simply untrue.
But those people have heard of something: they have heard of a Britain that is safe, where they can raise their children, where they can be who they are and have whatever faith they may be and whatever political views they may hold—a place where they can raise and feed their family in safety. I cannot imagine anything making me more proud than that being the reputation of this country. No amount of small-minded attempts to change the law by this “here today, gone tomorrow” Tory Government will dent that reputation. I think the Government have misjudged not only the asylum seekers, but Britain too.
Let me tell the House a story about my constituency, and then I will shut up. Let us be honest, the Lake District is not the most diverse part of the United Kingdom, yet in August 1945 half the children who survived the death camps, including Auschwitz, came to Windermere to be rehabilitated and to start their lives afresh, because that is who we really are. That is who Britain really is and we should be proud of that. Let us absolutely stop the boats, but let us do so in a way that makes sense and that is neither dozy nor dangerous.
Sir John Hayes
It is conventional in this place to say that it is a delight and a joy to follow the preceding speaker, and generally one does so as a matter of convention, but I am always pleased to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), even though I disagreed with almost everything he said. I know that he speaks with integrity and that he believes in his heart what he has said today, but I have to tell him that his purity—if I may put it in those terms—and his absolute Christian dignity have got the better of his reason in respect of this issue.
The hon. Gentleman’s constituents, like mine, expect this House to be where power lies, for it is this House that is answerable to them. He owes his political legitimacy to his relationship with the people he described in his constituency, as I do to those in mine. When other powers in other places supersede the authority of this House, in the way the European judges did when they held up the planes for those being sent to Rwanda, our constituents feel not only frustrated but let down. They feel let down because they see the will of this House and the will of our Government being impeded, and indeed frustrated, by those overseas powers.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is deeply confused about the difference between treaty law and statute. Perhaps she will explain that.
Yasmin Qureshi
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s mind to the 1970s when, in this country, a Conservative Government passed legislation saying that a married woman, or any woman, coming to this country had to go through a virginity test, and it was the European Court of Human Rights that overturned that British legislation. Are you really telling me that you think that legislation was correct?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think the hon. Lady means the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, not me.
Yasmin Qureshi
Is the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) really telling me that he thinks that decision by the European Court of Human Rights was wrong?
Sir John Hayes
I never knowingly defend the Heath Government, so I will not accept any connection with their measures. Indeed, it was Edward Heath who, against the interests of the British people, took us into the European Union in the first place, but I will not go down that road as it is not relevant to the amendments before us.
In the spirit I have just outlined, I will address the significance of the Bill and the amendments before us, in the context of the Government’s determination not only to tackle the issue of immigration per se, but to deal, in particular, with illegal immigration in the form of boats arriving in Dover. Just as we won the referendum campaign with the simple slogan “Take back control,” so it seems to me we will win this argument with a similar slogan: “Stop the boats.”
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I give way to my hon. Friend, who is an authority on all matters of this kind.
Daniel Kawczynski
When I arrived in this country as an immigrant in October 1978, I was bowled over by the hospitality and kindness I came across. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, in order to maintain the British people’s welcome for outsiders coming here, we have to deal with illegal migration? That is why it is so important that we support the Bill this evening.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right, of course. In a sense, his comments reflect the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but the spirit, character and reputation that Britain enjoys depend on both lawfulness and propriety. It is not unreasonable to suggest that our generosity should be defined by proper rules and standards.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) challenged the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on the issue of people not bringing documents, I was left to wonder, as others may have been, why on earth a legitimate asylum seeker who is pleased to come here on the basis he outlined would want to discard the documents that would prove their case. Why would they do that? That is the kind of question my constituents ask me. I have to conclude that many people disguise their identity and discard their documents not because they want to make it more straightforward for the Home Office to deal with their claim, for clearly it would not make it more straightforward, but because they have something to hide.
Last year, 33% of the people arriving in small boats were from Albania. That proportion has now fallen because the Government have done something about it. So much for inefficient Ministers and the inefficient Home Office. They dealt with the Albania issue, and they will now deal with this issue with equal alacrity and skill.
Stella Creasy
I fear the right hon. Gentleman may have misread the statistics, because it was Afghans who made up 33% of arrivals. Between October and December 2022, only 9% of small boat arrivals were Albanian.
Perhaps, as a general principle, we should not try to process claims in the Chamber. We should look at the evidence. Many of us who deal with asylum seekers have had that conversation, about why papers are missing, and we have been told very clearly that the traffickers tell them to tear up and remove their papers because that makes it easier for the traffickers. When was the last time the right hon. Gentleman spoke to someone who came to the UK by an irregular route and who did not have their paperwork? What did they tell him? Can he tell us about the evidence he has from actually working with these people and understanding the pressures they are under?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady informs many of her arguments in this place with anecdotes, sometimes with undue success, but I will not be drawn into an anecdotal debate because I want to address the issue in a rather more serious way—I do not mean to disparage her, of course.
In addressing amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), amendment 131 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and amendment 132 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), I want to be clear about the purpose of this Bill and why these amendments make sense. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with this matter as definitively as it can reasonably be addressed. The purpose of the Bill is to tighten the arrangements in respect of illegal immigration, and the amendments strengthen that aim. Our job, against a backdrop in which people are arriving in small boats and breaching our borders with impunity, is to re-establish the sovereignty of this country and the integrity of our borders by delivering legislation that does just that.
These amendments are designed to do two things. First, they would give the Government more power to achieve this objective. Secondly, they would limit the opportunities, which we know will be taken, to frustrate the Government’s will and, by extension, Parliament’s will to do more to address this matter.
I commend the Minister and the Home Secretary for their work on the Bill, but I am certain that the expectations it creates, the time it absorbs and the opposition it will undoubtedly generate, mean that, if it fails and the Government are found wanting, Conservative Members will pay a heavy price. The Minister knows we have been down this road before with the Nationality and Borders Act, which we were told would do the job. I do not think Ministers were deceiving us—they genuinely believed it would do the job—yet, although we did exactly what I described by devoting time and political capital, raising expectations and bringing about opposition, we found that we could not achieve what we wanted to and that we needed additional legislation to do so.
We will not be given a third chance. This is our second chance to deal, once and for all, with the boats arriving at Dover and with the tidal wave—the Home Secretary described it as a “swarm”—of people who know they are arriving illegally and are breaking the law, for they know they have no papers and no right to be here. They therefore make a nonsense of an immigration system that must have integrity if it is to garner and maintain popular support.
Of course, people enter and leave countries, but they need to do so legally. Surely it is not too much to express that simple statement. It is not too much to expect a Government to maintain lawful control of our borders, yet I constantly hear from Opposition Members that this is militant, unreasonable, extreme. It is anything but. It is modest, moderate, just and virtuous to have a system that ensures the people who come here do so lawfully, and that people who arrive here seeking asylum are dealt with properly. That is a modest aim, and it will be made more achievable by the amendments in the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for Devizes and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.
Given that the Minister is an old, trusted and good friend, I hope that, when he sums up the debate, he will agree to enter into a dialogue with those of us who speak for the people. We claim no more—no greater plaudit—than that we are the spokesmen of the hard-working, patriotic, lawful majority of the people of this country. In speaking for those people, we hope that he will enter into a dialogue with those of us who have tabled and supported these amendments with the aim of improving the Bill, of doing his work with him and for him, and in so doing honouring the pledge that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have made to the people of this country. Honouring that pledge is the right thing to do, the just thing to do and, indeed, the virtuous thing to do.
Joanna Cherry
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Eleanor. It is convention to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, but I find it hard to say that because I do not agree with anything that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said. It is an extraordinary proposition to say that, to use his words, it is virtuous and just for the United Kingdom to pass legislation that is in breach of our international obligations. These are not obligations that have been imposed on us from above. They are obligations to which we freely signed up. If the Government and Conservative Members do not like the obligations to which they freely signed up, they should have the courage of their convictions and join their chums in Russia and Belarus as non-signatories to the European convention on human rights. [Interruption.] They do not like it, but it is true: those are the other two countries in Europe that cannot live with the obligations in the European convention on human rights.
I want to make another preliminary point before I go any further. The right hon. Gentleman does not speak for my constituents—he does not speak for the people of Edinburgh South West. The contents of my mailbox and my conversations with constituents show that he does not speak for them. He does not speak for other voters in Scotland, either. We are proud of our international obligations, and we would like to remain a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
There is widespread concern about this Bill, and not just from lefty lawyers, to whom the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) referred earlier.
Joanna Cherry
No, I will not at this stage; I want to develop my point. I have been a lawyer for many years, and it pains me to say this—because I am a lefty lawyer —but if the hon. Lady knew much about the legal profession she would know that most lawyers are actually not lefties. However, what most lawyers do have, in contrast to the Conservative Members who have spoken so far today, is respect for the rule of law and for legal obligations freely entered into. Nobody took the hand of the United Kingdom and forced it to sign the convention. We did so freely, of our own volition. I repeat that, if Conservative Members do not like the obligations any longer, because they occasionally throw up results they do not like, they should have the courage of their convictions and leave the convention.
Joanna Cherry
I want to develop my point. I will take interventions in a moment. I do not want to take up too much time.
I rise to speak mainly to amendment 122, which is in my name, and to support the amendments tabled on behalf of the Scottish National party by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I also add my support to the excellent and forensic points made, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). It is a great pity that the Minister chose to take no notes while my hon. Friend was speaking, because he made some very good points and it would be really nice to hear why the Government disagree with them. At the end of six hours of debate, it is going to be difficult for the Minister to answer those points, given that he paid no attention to them and did not make any notes.
I tabled amendment 122 in my capacity as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am very grateful to those hon. Members who have lent their support to it. I am not going to press it, because the Committee has only just commenced its legal scrutiny of this Bill. That is not because we are dragging our feet, but because the Bill has been bounced on us at such short notice. We have very little time to undertake that scrutiny, but we hope to report before the Bill has finished its passage through the Lords. At that point, I hope we will be able to recommend some detailed amendments.
Amendment 122 is a probing amendment that gives me the opportunity to explain to the Government the legal basis of our obligations to obey the interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, because an awful lot of what we in Scotland call mince—which is a technical legal term—has been spoken about that so far.
As a preliminary point, I also want to stress the widespread opposition to this Bill. Our own Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Council of Europe all have severe concerns about this Bill’s impact on our international legal obligations. The UNHCR also has severe concerns about it, as have the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland, many other very respectable civil society organisations and many of our constituents.
Over the weekend, I received a number of letters from primary 7 pupils at Oxgangs Primary School in my constituency of Edinburgh South West. The gist of their letters was that we are a wealthy nation—the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who is no longer in his place, referred to the United Kingdom as a wealthy country; it is not a country but a union of nations—and we need to do more to help refugees. As other hon. Members have said, the majority of displaced people in this world just go to the country next door. It is only a very tiny fraction who come to the United Kingdom, looking for our help. I think that what those young people were trying to say is that we have a moral obligation to them. I think they were also making the point that human rights are universal. The Government need to remember that. This Bill seeks to carve out certain categories of people to whom human rights will not be applicable in the same way as they are to me and my constituents. That is simply wrong.
The purpose of amendment 122, which relates to clause 49, is to ensure that we recognise that the United Kingdom is bound to comply with interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and that any regulations made under clause 49 do not undermine that principle. The amendment is consistent with the unanimous recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we reported on a similar provision in the Bill of Rights Bill.
It is important to set out the legal basis on which the United Kingdom is bound to comply with those interim measures, and I will take a couple of minutes to do so. Under rule 39 of the rules of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court may indicate interim measures to any state party—not just the United Kingdom—that has freely signed up to the convention. They are usually sought in connection with immigration removal or extradition cases, and they amount to a requirement that the removal or extradition be suspended—not stopped—until the case has been fully examined. Case law from the Court has established that requests for interim measures are granted only exceptionally, when applicants would otherwise face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm. They are granted from time to time against the United Kingdom, but in fact that is very rarely the case. In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights received 1,020 requests from across the Council of Europe for interim measures and granted 625 of them. However, between 2019 and 2021, the interim measures under rule 39 were applied for in 880 cases against the UK, but granted in just seven of them.
This rides a coach and horses through our freely entered into international legal obligations in respect of interim measures—it really is taking a hammer to crack a nut. Interim measures appear in the rules of the Court rather than in the convention itself, which has led some commentators—including some Conservative Members —to argue that the UK is not bound to comply with them. This is particularly the case because article 46 of the convention, which concerns the
“Binding force and execution of judgments”,
only commits the UK to abide by final judgments of the Court, and does not mention interim measures.
Joanna Cherry
I will give way in a moment. I just want to develop my point and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that we have been arguing about this for years. This is an important point to make.
It is sometimes assumed that this Parliament just took on the character of the English constitution when it unified with the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps it is worth considering that there are other notions of sovereignty. In my country, the people are sovereign, not the Parliament, and they can choose to share their sovereignty with, for example, the Edinburgh Parliament, this Parliament and other international institutions. The endless obsessing about the sovereignty of Parliament is not particularly helpful. Where I really disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in this: I think that the Human Rights Act was an elegant solution to fulfilling our rights under the convention, while also respecting the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Sir William Cash
I wish to reply to the hon. and learned Lady by saying that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament rests with the United Kingdom Parliament. I know that she would quite like to leave it, but, on the other hand, she is bound by it, and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 specifies quite clearly that the sovereignty is guaranteed.
Joanna Cherry
The Union between Scotland and England was freely entered into. I know that some people are under the misapprehension that now it is some sort of “Hotel California” situation, where we can check out but cannot leave, but that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Union. The views that I am expounding about sovereignty are not just my eccentric views, but the views that have been expounded by many well-respected Scottish jurists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is worthwhile sometimes to take a step back. With all due respect to some of my English friends, they get a bit hysterical about parliamentary sovereignty. Sovereignty can be shared and, ultimately, I believe that sovereignty lies with the people. I will just leave it at that.
Laura Farris
It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I will try to avoid too much mince in my own speech, but to continue in the respectful tone that she has struck.
I wish to take a little of the heat out of this debate and to say that I think the British people would recognise in the United Kingdom a country that has honoured its commitments since the launch of the 1951 refugee convention to offer sanctuary to those with a well-founded fear of persecution. The record of the past seven years, where close to half a million people have been granted asylum on humanitarian grounds, bears testimony to that.
I think that the British people would also recognise that there are peculiar and unique problems that have arisen with the small boat crossings. Five years ago, in 2018, 300 people made that journey; last year, it was 45,000. Of those, 80% were men aged between 18 and 40, all of whom had paid a people smuggler and all of whom had the physical strength and wherewithal to make a journey across continental Europe through the small boat route. We know that a third of them arriving last year were Albanian.
I just want to read what Dan O’Mahoney told the Home Affairs Committee—I see that the Chair is in her place—when he appeared before it last October. I am quoting verbatim. He said about the Albanian arrivals:
“The rise has been exponential, and we think that is in the main due to the fact that Albanian criminal gangs have gained a foothold in the north of France and have begun facilitating very large numbers of migrants… Whatever sort of criminality you can think of…there are Albanian criminal gangs dominating”—
in this country—
“whether it is drug smuggling, human trafficking, guns or prostitution.”
He said that a lot of the Albanian migrants
“are not actually interested in seeing their asylum claim through… We typically put them in a hotel for a couple of days, and then they will disappear”
into the underworld.
That unique and specific problem requires a unique and specific answer. We all agree on safe and legal routes. I will not improve on the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) in his powerful speech. I heard from those on the Labour Front Bench, for the first time tonight, that they also endorse quotas, which is part of this Bill, and we agree with that.
In case my intervention earlier was not clear enough, I was simply saying that Harvey Redgrave, writing in a thoughtful piece for the Tony Blair Institute last July, talked about not only safe and legal routes, out-of-country rights of appeal and quotas, but an absolute prohibition on small boat arrivals. That really is the disputed issue in this legislation.
I rise to speak in response to amendments 131 and 132, which were tabled by two Conservatives, one of whom, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), is in his place.
Sir John Hayes
Before my hon. Friend moves on, many countries have a cap per se on immigration. In Australia, Parliament debates an annual cap; when David Cameron and George Osborne were running the Conservative party and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was Home Secretary, we said that that number should be counted in the tens of thousands. Perhaps that is what we should go back to.
Laura Farris
It is certainly true that the promise inherent in the refugee convention—an offer to the world at large, conceived in an era before easyJet, before people going on holiday to any country and before mass migration—must be looked at through a different lens in the year 2023. Many of our international partners are now talking in that way, and we may have to have a debate on a different occasion to talk about the issue more broadly.
Laura Farris
I am just going to make a tiny bit of progress, because I have not really started and there is not much time.
I want to respond to amendments 131 and 132, which would do slightly different things but have the same effect. I will look at you, Dame Eleanor, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes will not be offended if he has to look at my back. Amendment 131 would exclude the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and amendment 132 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 in so far as they may be relevant to decisions taken under this Bill.
I want to say at the outset that I understand the impulse that has brought my hon. Friend here—namely the frustration with the exercise of the rule 39 injunctive relief decision in July, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West covered so well in her speech. She will know as well as I do that rule 39 is not an inherent part of the European convention on human rights; she said in her speech that it is a rule of the Court.
That decision was taken by a single judge alone. The hon. and learned Lady is right to point out that that is common and standard in injunctive proceedings, but it is none the less somewhat surprising to see that matter go through in the eyes of the High Court, the Court of Appeal here and, finally, the Supreme Court, and then be overturned by the decision of a single judge in Europe. We do not even know who the judge was, but we know that Tim Eicke, our own British judge who sits on the European Court, has never sat as a High Court judge. He is a barrister. I say that with deference to his brilliance, and of course I am not criticising him; that is standard for the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is odd to see our own Supreme Court, with some of the most brilliant justices in the world, being overruled, under a Court rule, by somebody who is probably not of their status. I think that is a true statement.
Joanna Cherry
I went on to say that in the case of Paladi v. Moldova, the Grand Chamber said that a failure to comply with interim measures amounts to a violation of article 34 of the convention, because the high contracting parties have undertaken not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of the right of applicants to bring their claims before the Court. Whereas it was originally in the rules of Court, the Grand Chamber has now said that failure to obtemper or comply with that would be a violation of article 34 of the convention.
Laura Farris
I take the hon. and learned Lady’s point. We are obviously adhering to that, but as a rule of the Court.
Moving on, I was glad to read recently, whether in a press release or in a tweet—I cannot recall—the Home Secretary saying she was glad that constructive talks were now taking place between representatives of the British Government and members of the European Court of Human Rights, focused on resolving that issue. I say that is good because I think it should be possible to resolve that issue, since it is a rule of the Court rather than a principle of human rights. I hope we can move on from there.
If I may say so, with great respect, I do not accept that that decision in itself justifies these two amendments. I think both are weak for legal and constitutional reasons, and I will set out why. First, on amendment 131, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) said that he had relied on a paper written for Policy Exchange by Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws. I challenge the expertise of both those people—I question it. One of them has contacted me in the past, but neither are practitioners, and it shows in their writing that they are not regularly in court.
Laura Farris
I will in a moment; I am going to make my points.
On the first element of amendment 132, which seeks to exclude the operation of the Human Rights Act, the only realistic basis for someone who arrived via small boat to challenge their removal to a safe third country under the Human Rights Act would be either article 2 or article 3 of the European convention—the right to life, or not to have one’s life endangered, and the right to freedom from torture.
Laura Farris
I am sorry; I will come to my hon. Friend in a moment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wrote an article in “Conservative Home” today in which they said and endorsed:
“Individuals would not be removed if they are medically unfit to fly, or will face persecution in the destination country.”
That is the non-refoulement principle, which is at the heart of the refugee convention. One thing that shows the lack of expertise in this area is that the same principle ripples through the common law, the refugee convention and the European convention of human rights; it applies across the board. It is even set out in terms in this legislation. Therefore, it would be pointless to derogate from the Human Rights Act on that question, because the principle that protects people from persecution is so embedded in any event.
Sir William Cash
I just wanted to point out, in case other Members of the House do not know, that Professor Ekins is a professor of law at Oxford University and Sir Stephen Laws is a former first parliamentary counsel. I think those are rather good credentials compared with the views of what I would describe as ordinary barristers.
Laura Farris
No disrespect is intended, but it is clear that they are not frequently in court arguing these cases, because if they were, they would know the way the law ran.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady and I do not agree about a lot of things, but I believe she has expertise in this area as a barrister—that is correct, is it not?
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady has expertise and has practised in this area, so I suggest to her hon. Friends that her views deserve a degree of respect.
Laura Farris
On the Government side of the House, I am probably the Member who has most recently been in the immigration tribunals, so I have an idea, but it is not my principal practice area.
The other thing that I think is relevant is that Parliament has in the past successfully recalibrated the interpretation of the convention and changed the way it is interpreted, and had no difficulty with that. The Bill already takes a number of novel steps in relation to established law. First, it creates an absolute duty of removal on the Home Secretary that applies irrespective of any human rights claim, with the exception of the non-refoulement principle. Secondly, the Bill expands powers of immigration detention, granting the Secretary of State a power to determine the period that is “reasonably necessary”, in some ways overriding established Hardial Singh principles. Thirdly, it limits the rights of appeal: the individual has a right of appeal, but that is capped at one. In my respectful submission, the Government must have the opportunity to see those clauses enacted, because I believe that they will be upheld by the European Court of Human Rights.
Back in 2012, the coalition Government changed the immigration rules in relation to the deportation of foreign national offenders and the application of article 8, which is the right to respect for private and family life. Parliament took the view that that was too often being interpreted in favour of the ex-convict, and, as a result, set new rules—from paragraph 398 onwards of the established immigration rules—to make it clear that there were limited circumstances in which article 8 should be engaged. Parliament said in terms that the balance should be struck in favour of the overwhelming public interest in deportation, above any article 8 claim unless there were very compelling circumstances to the contrary. That was upheld in successive decisions by our appeal courts, beginning with MF (Nigeria) in the Court of Appeal.
The decision by Parliament to circumscribe the ambit of article 8 when it applied to criminals was taken to the European Court of Human Rights for years, but the court would not hear the issue at all until 2017 in the case of Ndidi. I reminded myself today of how that case was approached. In fact, a quite compelling article 8 argument was made: the person had arrived in the United Kingdom as a baby and had never been anywhere else, and the offending was quite low level—drug dealing rather than any harm to the person. The courts here had said that he must be deported to a country that he had never been to before. He challenged that in the European Court of Human Rights, which said, “No, the British Government are absolutely entitled to circumscribe the application of article 8 in the way that they have.” His claim was rejected.
My simple point is that we can do things—in the way that the Government are seeking through the Bill—that may well be compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I have struggled to find any example of the court overturning primary legislation, which is what the Bill is, or constructing it in a way that is disadvantageous to the member state. The fact that so many Members refer back to the prisoner voting case does not enhance their argument. That case is 20 years old and has been reversed. I accept without reservation that it was wrongly decided—I think there was overreach—but I have heard no example from the last 20 years to suggest that the Court is still making the same mistakes.
We have talked about the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 not being a success, but that was not because the European Court of Human Rights said that it was unlawful or overreached; we simply concluded that it did not yet work. For those reasons, I think that the Bill already goes very far and should be given the chance to work through.
Sir John Hayes
This is a fascinating description of the three ways in which we can deal with this matter. One way is to leave the convention altogether, which is what I would favour but is not what we are proposing or debating tonight. The second is to have some kind of “notwithstanding clause” of the kind that has been proposed. The third is to assume, through the interpretation of the Court of the will of Parliament and Government, that we will have our way. My hon. Friend is making a good case for the third way, but the problem with that is that it places a great deal of faith—although she says that she does so on the basis of precedent—in the Court to honour the will of this House. I am not sure that I would have the same degree of faith. If she does not like the work of Professor Ekins and so on, I recommend that she look at the speech given at Cambridge University by the Home Secretary—when she was Attorney General —on the interpretative matters that my hon. Friend describes.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should sit down when allowing an intervention.
Laura Farris
I am sorry, Dame Eleanor.
To respond to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, it is dangerous to conflate what has been understood on the Conservative Benches to have been called “overreach” in the application of rule 39—on which I agree—with an overenthusiasm of the Court to involve itself in primary legislation, which is what the Bill will be. I see no precedent for that concern, so I hope that I can allay my right hon. Friend’s fear to some extent.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
To add to the list of our right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), is there not a fourth option in—call me old fashioned—ensuring that His Majesty’s Government meet our international obligations wherever that may be? That is option four, and one that I think commands quite strong support across the Committee.
Laura Farris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which brings me to my final argument.
Wrenching change from either the applicability of the Human Rights Act or the jurisdiction of the Court is a dangerous path to go down. The European convention on human rights is fundamental to the devolution settlements in Wales and Northern Ireland, and it also plays a distinct role in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As we are so near to the 25th anniversary of that agreement, I want to read out how the European convention on human rights was framed as an integral safeguard:
“There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including…the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)…which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe”.
At the time of the conclusion of that agreement, there was a climate of deep scepticism about British courts following the establishment of, for example, Diplock courts and other things that were controversial. The European Court of Human Rights is not just something to which lip service is paid; it is integral to the proper functioning of that agreement.
I must mention our proud history in the formation and construction of the European convention on human rights—it is well known that David Maxwell Fyfe was a Conservative MP. It is unsurprising, then, that we are one of the states with the lowest number of adverse findings. We should be very wary of quick fixes. We said throughout the Brexit debate that we would be taking back control of our borders, but it is more complex than that. My point tonight is that leaving the convention, or derogating from it, is not the answer. That will not do the job and will undermine the effect of the Bill, which I think will be upheld as lawful by the European Court of Human Rights in the event that it is referred there.
Stella Creasy
I wish to reassure the Committee that I will speak only to the amendments that have been selected for this evening—I know that we have debates on other amendments scheduled tomorrow, and I have amendments in both selections.
I beg your leave, Dame Eleanor, to reflect on the fact that, while this important debate has been taking place, Jess England, a member of my staff, has just won parliamentary staffer of the year. Jess has first-hand knowledge of the things that we are discussing because she has for years helped me work with people seeking asylum—refugees from around the world who have come to the UK and have a connection to Walthamstow. I put on the record my gratitude to Jess, whose award is long overdue. If she were here now, she could bring much light to this debate as somebody who knows about the reality for people fleeing persecution.
It is a genuine honour to follow the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). We may be in different political parties, but I recognise how brave she has just been to make that speech and to speak up for the importance of human rights, which has increasingly become an extreme view in the Conservative movement. I recognise the power of her speech and its many points, and the expertise that she put on the record. The House benefits from light, not heat, in such debates.
There is clarity in that there is not a single Member among us who wants to help the smugglers; not a single Member among us thinks that small boats crossing the English channel is an acceptable or reasonable way to proceed. The difference is in how we address the issue; whether we pour oil on that fire or seek, in our amendments, to recognise the best of Britain—to be the actual patriots in this Chamber. So far, we have talked so much about the ways people travel, but not about who is travelling.
Different statistics have been bandied around. We know that the vast majority of people in those boats are from seven countries, so let us recognise first and foremost why it matters that the legislation meets the test not of the mode of travel but of who is travelling. People fleeing persecution do not form orderly queues at the border when there is a war. When they are facing persecution for their political or religious beliefs, they cannot turn to the state to ask for their paperwork to be put in order and emailed to them so that they may cross the border with copies of it.
I reflect on the fact that the former Member for Blackburn, who was responsible for incorporating the Human Rights Act into UK legislation used to say to me, “There was left and right in Parliament, and then there were those people who dealt with the UK Border Agency and those who did not.” When dealing with people who have fled persecution, we know at first hand that it is not a simple, straightforward linear experience that accommodates well the kind of bureaucracy and administrative process that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) wishes for. That is why the refugee convention itself says that refugees should not be prosecuted for destroying their documents, for issues around immigration fraud or, indeed, for their mode of travel, recognising the reality that when the decision is life or death, life matters. I see no irony in suggesting that.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a really important point, which is not pertinent only to the small boats. We witnessed exactly the same issue with Ukraine. People were fleeing Ukraine in fear of their lives; we opened up safe routes, but many of those people had to leave all their important documentation behind.
Stella Creasy
I agree. Some of us are still dealing with people from Afghanistan—people who put their lives on the line to help British forces but have not been able to come here. They listen to the Minister talk about the idea that somehow we have taken 25,000 people under the schemes. We have not—their families are still stuck. If the Minister wants the casework, I have raised on the record before the case of a family who were split up on the way to the Baron hotel.
Stella Creasy
If the Minister will take the casework, I will take the intervention. That family need to be here.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady cannot trade in anecdote rather than facts. The facts of the matter are that the scheme has taken 25,000 individuals since just before the fall of Kabul. Those are the facts. As I always say to the hon. Lady, I am very happy to look into individual cases. But in this Chamber, we should deal in facts—not fiction.
Stella Creasy
The Minister knows that that is not how the scheme has worked; he knows that only 22 people have been resettled. He already has in his inbox the case I mentioned—it is long overdue his attention. Every single day, I think about that family. They were told that they should go to the Baron hotel. They could not get there because there was an explosion. They are now separated—the family are in hiding and the father is here, desperate and out of his mind about what to do. He was promised a safe and legal route by this Government, but of that promise there came no reality.
That is why I cannot support this Bill in its current form. First and foremost, it does nothing to the smugglers themselves. We all agree that the smugglers are the people we want to stop. Why is there not a single measure in the Bill that directly affects them? The idea that we can cut off their market does not recognise that we have seen these kinds of measures before. All that happens is the prices go up. People disappear; modern slavery increases.
Stella Creasy
Of course I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am looking forward to hearing what he has to say.
Sir John Hayes
When we tackle illegal immigration, we are doing several things. We are attacking it at source by getting to the smugglers, we are dealing with the issues in the channel and on the coast, and we are creating a legislative framework fit for purpose. They are separate parts of a strategy.
Stella Creasy
I look forward to having a debate with the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow about my amendment 293, which would remove the word “Illegal” from the title of the Bill. It is not illegal to seek asylum. What he is talking about is not what the Bill will do. I have tried to urge him before not to process people’s claims in the Chamber; this is about the evidence of what we see.
I have multiple anecdotes about people who have been failed by our asylum system, the processing and the promises they were given of a safe and legal route. That is why this evening I wish to speak to the amendments about safe and legal routes. If the Government think this legislation is about illegal migration, by default there must be a legal process—so those safe and legal routes deserve much more scrutiny and attention. The Government have failed to provide a children’s rights assessment and equality impact assessment. It is so worrying that they are asking us to trust them when they cannot set out how they think people who are entitled to seek asylum because they are fleeing persecution should do so.
When I look at this Bill, I see that it needs a drastic overhaul even to meet its own ambitions or the pledges in article 31 of the refugee convention that somebody destroying their documents should not be penalised by the suggestion that their claim must be malicious. We should look at the actual evidence as to why smugglers encourage them to do that. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings suggests that somehow the Bill will do what the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 failed to do and what this Government’s policies keep failing to do. Let us learn from Einstein—that most famous refugee, who this country turned away. He said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
My new clause 17 is a probing one, on that basis. If the Government talk about safe and legal routes, we should know what those are intended to do. It simply says that the Government should set out what a safe and legal route is and which countries are therefore unsafe and require a legal route. After all, the Bill sets out countries considered to be safe. Ergo, all the countries not listed must be unsafe. The Government should tell us in Parliament how people should be able to access those routes and therefore not make dangerous journeys.
I also support new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) in new clause 10. We would all agree that all these new clauses need further work, but they all get towards a simple principle: to ask what is the role of a safe and legal route in this legislation. If the Bill is about illegal migration, what is the point of safe and legal routes? My amendment 138, which will be debated tomorrow, is about how that might then play a role in asylum processing itself.
There is a simple message in all this work. I agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash); that might surprise people, and I am sorry he is not in the Chamber to hear it. He said that the processing and assessing of claims matters. Absolutely, and that is why the failures we have seen for a number of years have not been to do with the refugees themselves but to do with the politicians and their failure to get to grips with this. That is why it matters that the Government are not using the correct figures from the statistics authority. They are not showing us the true scale of the problem, which legislation has consistently failed to deal with. That is why we need to do something different, such as clarifying what a safe and legal route is and how it fits into the refugee convention and our processing. In a war, there are not simple processes of admin and bureaucracy that we can push people towards, so it matters all the more that we respect and recognise that in how we treat people who still think that life is better than death and who still choose to run.
I say to some Conservative Members that one of the top countries from which the people in the boats come is Iran. I have sat in this Chamber and heard people call out the Iranian Government and speak of their concern about the persecution of people in Iran. Not half an hour later, those people talk about how awful anybody in the boats is, although Iranians are the third most common country represented in them. There is no safe route from Iran.
Stella Creasy
The Minister says there is. I am in touch with people right now, brave defenders of democracy, who have no route out and are at risk.
Robert Jenrick
Since 2015, the UK has taken more than 6,000 Iranians directly for asylum purposes. What the hon. Lady says is simply not true.
Stella Creasy
The Minister needs to be clear about how those people have been identified. There are people tonight in Tehran at direct risk of harm and needing our help. The challenge with this legislation is that it refuses to set out a safe and legal route, saying that it will be done in secondary guidance. None of us can therefore be confident enough to say to those people, “Hold up—wait for the queue and the bureaucracy. There is somewhere for you to go. Don’t worry, because help is coming.”
The Government must connect with international organisations and uphold the international rule of law. The honest truth is that the only way the world will be able to stand up to dictators and persecutors and against war is by collaborating. We have seen that in such a powerful way in Ukraine, yet we do not seem to be capable of learning the lessons by setting out schemes and being able to say to people, “Actually, there is a way forward, and we will all share the burden of standing up for these values.” That is what a sensible asylum policy would do, because it would be effective. We would cut off the boats at source by having proper, safe and legal routes for people so that they would not need to get on a boat to claim in the first place. Irregular routes are inevitable because of why people are running in the first place.
I also want to speak briefly to amendments 131 and 132—I pay testament to the Member who spoke to me previously about them—which are about our role in the European Court of Human Rights. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) is not here, because I was hoping he might want a chance to clarify his earlier remark, in which he genuinely tried to suggest that Winston Churchill opposed us being part of the European Court of Human Rights. As somebody who served on the Council of Europe and repeatedly saw pictures of Winston Churchill—
Stella Creasy
I will, if the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my sentence; I am sure he wishes to hear what I have to say. I thought it was worth hearing from the man himself, because his argument for a European Court of Human Rights was that:
“In the centre of our movement”—
don’t tell anybody that he wanted a united Europe—
“stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.”
What Winston Churchill saw then, we still see now, which is overbearing Governments who do not respect the courts of law and do not want the scrutiny of law. These amendments speak to precisely that fear: that legislation in this country might be poorly drafted, burdensome or, indeed, oppressive. What we all want, and what we would find common cause with Winston Churchill on—that does not happen often—is the importance of keeping politicians honest by putting them up to the scrutiny of the courts. Now I will happily give way, to see how the hon. Gentleman feels he can be honest and whether he wants to support these amendments and take that point away.
Tom Hunt
I will attempt to answer on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who I spoke to earlier about this. One of his key points was that what the late Sir Winston Churchill signed up in 1950 did not involve rule 39 audits. The way in which the situation has evolved means that what we are dealing with today is totally different from the situation that faced this country in 1950, so to make that comparison is crude, and it is wrong. I am sure that when my hon. Friend comes back and makes a further intervention at some point, either today or tomorrow, he will powerfully deal with the critique that the hon. Member has just put in front of him.
Stella Creasy
I hope that the hon. Member for Devizes is at dinner, because after having made that speech, I am sure he needs something to eat. I simply say that that was not what Winston Churchill stood up for—as those of us who have served on the Council of Europe and read his speeches in detail know—let alone subsequent Conservative Governments. Those Governments were part of the development of the Council of Europe, where we did not just scrutinise the judges but helped appoint them and vote for them: we had a direct role in choosing them. That does not accord with what the hon. Gentleman was arguing, which was that this is out of kilter. Every single step of the way, the United Kingdom has been part and parcel of developing the European Court of Human Rights—and rightly so, frankly, because the libertarian in me speaks up for the Court. If given the temptation to be overbearing, without scrutiny and without the courts to keep them honest, Governments of all colours will do things that none of us think right.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, and then I do want to come to a conclusion.
Simon Hoare
Is it not an unassailable truth that the fundamental principles that drove Churchill, the Conservative party and this place to support these initiatives remain as true today as they did those years ago? Of course, it has been a living, iterative, organic process, but the fundamental underpinning principles that established it still remain true, and if Churchill were here today, he would be making precisely that point.
Stella Creasy
I think we have all expounded quite clearly on how that the interpretation that the hon. Member for Devizes sought to set out of what Churchill thought might not be an entirely complete representation of what that gentleman—he made sure that we were among the first signatories to the European Court of Human Rights, and he continued to campaign and lobby for it and its development and evolution up until his death—would in fact have thought.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but then I really must bring my remarks to an end.
Yasmin Qureshi
The thing I am having difficulty understanding is this. We signed the European convention on human rights, and we have signed many other international conventions. If we are not going to abide by the rules of those conventions, why did we sign them?
Stella Creasy
My colleague sets out the other, more pragmatic point that I would like to put on the record, which is that actually it does not matter what Churchill thought. If we want to resolve how people are travelling around the world to seek safety and sanctuary because they are fleeing persecution—if we want to be a grown-up on the world stage—not upholding international law is not the best way to make sure that we are in the room when decisions are made about how to share that burden.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister himself has said that he has no plans for us to leave the European Court of Human Rights, because I think it does reflect a recognition that we need to uphold international law and to be part of those conversations. The answer to the Government’s concerns is not this legislation; it is to go to the Council of Europe and be part of those debates and discussions about the role of the Court and how it operates; it is to show that we are prepared to fight for our values, not just here but internationally. We can then arrange the kinds of schemes that will be inevitable in making sure that we, as a world, can deal with the conflict and disruption that means that there are more people fleeing persecution. It is to say that this is not to do with somebody’s nationality or how they travel, but the risk that they face. That is the most simple and, frankly, patriotic point.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There are 14 people trying to catch my eye. The last two speakers spoke for 22 minutes and 19 minutes. If everybody contributes that far, not everybody will get in—it is up to you.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I have heard your strictures, Mr Evans, and I shall try to be as brief as I possibly can. I rise to speak in support of the amendments to which I am a signatory, and I will focus in particular on amendment 131, which has been the subject of so much of the debate this evening.
Illegal migration is a severe problem, and one that is causing increasing concern to constituents of most, if not all, hon. Members. Speaking from my own experience as the Member of Parliament for a semi-rural constituency in north Wales, many hundreds of miles away from the channel beaches, I can say that I receive more correspondence about this issue than virtually any other national issue. Over the years, the people of this country have shown themselves to be generous and welcoming to those who are genuinely in peril—that is borne out by the warmth of the welcome they have given in recent years to Ukrainians fleeing from Putin’s aggression, and to Hongkongers escaping China’s anti-democratic oppression. Equally, however, they are incensed by the rapidly rising influx of illegal migrants, who are themselves the pitiful currency of the loathsome trade of people smuggling. As such, the Prime Minister is quite right to make plain that stopping the small boats is at the top of his list of priorities, and this Bill is therefore highly welcome.
The Government have taken a robust approach to the problem, and that robustness will be highly welcomed by the people of this country, whose patience has been tried too, and beyond breaking point. There is a concern, however, that the Government’s perfectly proper aim of breaking the business model of the people smugglers might be frustrated by the human rights legislation that is routinely and, frankly, cynically abused by those who wish to degrade this country’s ability to defend its own borders and territorial integrity. In clause 1(5) the Government recognise that concern. That provision excludes the operation of section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides that so far as is possible, legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Excluding section 3 is itself a bold step for which the Government are to be commended, but given the severity of the problem, as Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws have pointed out, it remains debatable whether clause 1(5) alone will be sufficient to safeguard the Bill’s measures against cynical procedural attacks via the European Court of Human Rights. It is for such purpose that amendments 131, 132 and 133 are framed. Anyone doubting the need for such amendments should consider the case of N.S.K. v. United Kingdom, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger). To repeat, in that case a duty judge of the European Court of Human Rights made an order, on 13 June last year, granting an application for a rule 39 measure preventing the removal of an asylum seeker to Rwanda.
That order was made ex parte, without any opportunity for the UK Government to argue against it. Furthermore, the order was made after both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had rejected applications for interim relief. The Supreme Court in fact went on to refuse an application for leave to appeal. Remarkably, however, the rule 39 order was made the day before the Supreme Court announced its refusal, apparently contrary to the rule that domestic proceedings must be exhausted before applications to the European Court will be entertained. The position therefore is that the most senior judges in the land had considered the merits of the applicant’s case and found against it, yet a European judge made an order frustrating the removal of the applicant without considering the merits of the Government’s case and apparently contrary to the European Court’s own rules.
Interim measures are not strictly legally binding, but the European Court’s own jurisprudence, as has already been pointed out, asserts that any failure to comply with them amounts to a contravention of article 34, by hindering an applicant’s right to apply to the Court alleging a breach of the convention. The possibility—arguably, the probability—is that domestic British courts will feel constrained to act in compliance with interim measures and, indeed, to follow other judgments of the European Court, and that alone could prove fatal to the aims of the Bill. I do not believe that the Government or this House should allow that to happen.
Appropriate further safeguards should be introduced to the Bill to ensure its effectiveness, and it is for that purpose that amendment 131 was tabled. It would ensure that the legitimate and proper aim of the Government to protect our national borders is not frustrated. Put simply, the people of this country will not thank us if the Bill does not work, and there is a distinct danger, if the European Court is allowed, that that is precisely what will happen.
I believe that amendment 131 is absolutely necessary, and for similar reasons I support the other amendments to which I have put my name. It has already been pointed out that those amendments will not be pressed to a vote, but I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), when he winds up, will confirm that he will engage in dialogue with those of us who are concerned about the absence of those amendments and seek a way forward that will ensure that the Bill will work, which is what every hon. Member of this House should want.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I receive help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work in this area. I also co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on migration, so I have spent a long time thinking about these issues. I have taken a long look at our history, and it is interesting to hear us talk about Winston Churchill. I doubt that Government Members know that he crossed the Floor on the issue in 1904 to oppose the Aliens Act 1905 and lead a rebellion against it. He was quoted at the time talking about
“the old tolerant and generous practice of free entry…to which this country has so long adhered”.
Just to add some more spice to the discussion about the history of this place and our role within migration policy, it is important to recognise that.
I rise to speak specifically to my new clause 10, which I am pleased to say enjoys a wide range of cross-party support. I thank all Members who have engaged with me on this amendment. It is meant to be a serious contribution to the debate about the humanitarian crisis in the channel. However, I worry that that seriousness is not shared by everyone in this Chamber.
Since arriving in Parliament in 2019, I have tried not to become too jaded or too cynical, but I must admit that at times it has been difficult. Today, debating this Bill, is one of those times, because we have repeatedly been told that these proposals are about stopping the boats. The Prime Minister even had it printed on his lectern. To be clear, it is a moral outrage that people need to get in a blow-up boat, risking life and limb, to exercise their rights under the refugee convention to claim asylum here. We need a solution to this humanitarian crisis in the channel, but that is not what the Bill offers. Instead, it doubles down on the same failed hostile environment framework that has characterised the Government’s approach to asylum and migration. It is simply not working.
Since 2018, 56 people have tragically drowned in the channel—brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts and cousins to many families already in the UK—yet the number of dangerous crossings has risen, even after the Government’s Rwanda policy was announced, and that announcement in itself was deemed to be a deterrent. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has become law and people continue to make these journeys.
I am proud that my city, Sheffield, calls itself a city of sanctuary. The people I meet who support refugee rights often quote the lines of a poem called “Home”, by the Somali-British writer Warsan Shire:
“no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land”,
and,
“no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark.”
Those lines are important, because they explain why people attempt these crossings.
We have heard a lot of talk about families today. I regularly engage with and talk to asylum seekers and refugees in the system, whose family members are being persecuted because of them leaving the country. They have brothers who have been arrested by the police on spurious grounds, or their parents have sadly been murdered as a result of their identity. We really must shine a light on how the Government’s strategy is doomed to fail and, perhaps more importantly, why the success of that strategy would be a horror. The only way that the deterrence framework can work is if the hostile environment it creates is worse than what people are running from.
That is why I feel jaded. I do not think this is really about stopping the crossings and saving lives. These proposals are not about how people come here to claim asylum; they are about stopping people from claiming asylum at all. This is not about fairness. It is about populist electoral politics, throwing red meat to a section of hard-line, anti-refugee opinion. What better example is there than the cruelty of stripping away the modern slavery provisions of asylum seekers who have survived human trafficking? This legislation, as it stands, would persecute the persecuted and criminalise the victims of crime.
To be frank, I suspect there are some of the Conservative side of the House who think it is a good thing that the Bill violates the UN conventions on international human rights law. The Government’s credibility is so shredded that they believe the only route to future electoral success is to wage a culture war, gleefully reciting pre-rehearsed lines about lefty lawyers, while the situation of some of the most vulnerable people in the world gets worse and worse.
However, the Government could prove me wrong, and I give them that opportunity. A start would be supporting and looking into the proposals of new clause 10, which builds on the proposals of the PCS union and Care4Calais, two organisations working at the frontline of the crisis. It offers a practical solution to a humanitarian crisis in the channel by creating a safe passage visa. The visa would give entry clearance to those already in Europe who wish to come to the UK to make an asylum claim.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute further to the debate on this vital Bill, which promises tangible action to address the frustrations of my constituents. As I have said previously, I very much support the actions of this Government and the Prime Minister in taking a tough new approach to tackling illegal migration. I want to challenge some of the things Opposition Members have said, particularly the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who is not currently in his place. He spoke about there not being any safe and legal routes beyond those country-specific schemes. In fact, 50,000 people have come since 2015 through routes open to any country. Those include the refugee family reunion scheme, the UK resettlement scheme, the community sponsorship scheme and the mandate resettlement scheme. In total, that means that 480,000 people have come via safe and legal routes since 2015.
Stoke-on-Trent has been more generous than most other places in the country, and many feel that their generosity has been taken for granted and that their genuine concerns about irregular migration have been ignored, or even held in contempt, particularly by the Labour party and the lefty activist lawyers who are determined to frustrate the democratic will of the people. Because their determination to frustrate the will of this elected House is so strong, we need at this Committee stage to close all potential loopholes.
The amendments to which I have attached my name are those that I felt would make this a “belt and braces” Bill against scurrilous actions. The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will ensure that a successful suspensive claim will be the only way to prevent removal —no ifs, no buts, and no tying it all up in challenges to circumvent the intended will of this Parliament. Time and again, we have been shown that any lack of crystal clarity will be exploited by activist lefty lawyers. The danger is that people will lose faith in the democratic process, and in mainstream parties, if democratic mandates and Acts of Parliament are constantly frustrated by loopholes we have left.
Unprecedented pressure necessitates unprecedented actions, and the actions in the Bill will break the people smugglers’ model of taking money to get people illegally into Britain, with what has been a relatively small chance of ever being removed under the overwhelmed legacy system that this Home Secretary is having radically to reform. I hope those actions will be properly resourced, not just financially but in terms of available skills and workforce professionals, including some of those who will be based at the Home Office hub in Stoke-on-Trent. But our job today is to make this Bill unambiguous in confirming its intent to enable the removal of illegal migrants and ensure the primacy of this House in delivering on the democratic will.
Small-boat people smuggling is a dangerous and unacceptable trade in human lives, and only by smashing the traders’ business model can we really bring it to an end. That means we must also frustrate the business model of activist Labour lawyers who look for any loophole or ambiguity for their own political ends of making borders irrelevant and impossible to protect. Therefore, in addition to supporting the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke). The Human Rights Act should not be misused to remove control of our national border and the same applies to the European Court.
I welcome that the Government have stipulated in clause 1 the intention that the Bill will be exempt from section 3 of the Human Rights Act, and in line with the belt-and-braces approach that is necessary. As my right hon. Friend for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is not in his place, said, it makes sense to disapply sections 4, 6 and 10 to close the loopholes of any supposed incompatibility where it is impossible to use section 3.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of standing up for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire. He has proudly put his signature to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on the ECHR, which I have also signed. Let us be crystal clear about what that amendment will do. It is about making it perfectly crystal clear to UK courts that rule 39 orders that come from the European Court of Human Rights and are not based in law, are not to be taken into judgment by UK courts when it comes to the removal of illegal economic migrants who have come from safe, mainland France. We are simply reconfirming what was in the original convention back in the 1950s, when rule 39 orders did not even exist, or were not even mentioned. We want to ensure that we deliver on the will of the people in places such as Stoke-on-Trent that my hon. Friend serves so well.
Jack Brereton
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I entirely agree. The people of Stoke-on-Trent absolutely want robust action on this. We will not continue to tolerate the powers of Strasbourg and the European courts overriding the decisions of this House and our British courts.
If we do not stop illegal entry and misuse of the asylum system, we will not be able to give proper attention to those in genuine need. Nor will we enjoy the support of the general public. The Bill is about fairness and ensuring that resources are available for those in genuine need, but it needs to have belt and braces to ensure it does not end up in a lucrative legal battle for activist lawyers. Real change is needed to tackle the unprecedented pressures and to look to the improvements that are needed. I look forward to those constructive discussions with Ministers. We must never again allow our generosity and compassion as a nation to be abused by people smugglers with dangerous small boats.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
That was a much shorter contribution, so things are looking brighter to get everybody in.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Bills of major constitutional significance are usually treated on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the Whole House. The Government refused to send the Elections Bill and the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to Committee of the whole House and sent them upstairs to Public Bill Committees, yet they find time for this Bill, which stretches any claim to reflect what was in the Tory manifesto, to have its Committee stage here in the Chamber. I wonder why that is. One effect, of course, is that there is no opportunity to hear from stakeholders by taking evidence on the Bill. Perhaps that is not a surprise because there does not seem to have been a single briefing or intervention from anyone with any interest or experience in the field of immigration, asylum policy or law that is actually in support of what the Government are proposing.
The only people cheering on the Bill are the populist hard-right elements on the Conservative Back Benches—and, I suppose, the Cabinet—and their friends in equally right-wing media outlets. Even then, it seems that this is a Bill that pleases no one. The range of amendments tabled from the Back Benches, on both sides of the Committee, shows the risk the Government are taking and the damage they are doing by pursuing wedge-issue and dog-whistle politics. The Brexiteers, seemingly with the tacit support of the Home Secretary, are seeking to use their amendments to expunge any last vestige of what they see as European influence in the United Kingdom by taking us out of the ECHR.
Meanwhile, on the Opposition Benches, many of us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), are proposing a wide range of amendments that seek to reduce or negate some of the worst aspects of the Bill. Amendment 76, for example, on which I hope we will be able to test the will of the Committee, would make it much clearer that the need for protection, the experience of human rights abuses, or being a victim of slavery or human trafficking would be grounds for a claim to suspend a deportation process. Amendment 77 puts much stronger restrictions on the definitions of a third country to which asylum seekers could be deported. Many other SNP amendments have similar effects. They aim to introduce some element of fairness and respect for human rights, whether on the time available for appeals and considerations, or the grounds on which such claims can be made.
The key issue in this evening’s grouping is that, if the Government really want to stop people arriving here on small boats, they have to provide safe and legal alternatives. The reality is that at the moment for the majority of people who currently arrive here and successfully claim asylum, such routes do not exist. What are the safe and legal routes for someone from Eritrea or Iran? That question has been asked multiple times and has not been properly answered. If there were safe and legal routes available, people would not be coming. Incidentally, the Bill is supposed to have a deterrent effect and is backdated to 7 March, so I wonder how many people have been deterred already. Have landings on the south coast of England suddenly evaporated? I suspect not and that perhaps shows that the Bill is not going to have the effect the Government want it to have.
Even where schemes for safe and legal routes exist, such as for Afghanistan, like the proposals in the Bill, they go nowhere near far enough. My amendments, including amendments 177 and 179, make the point that it is far better to think in terms of targets than caps for safe and legal entrants. This country is crying out for people to come here and help make our health service, social care system, hospitality industries and agricultural sector work more effectively and efficiently, but too many people who could be—and want to be —productive are left sitting in hotels at the taxpayer’s expense, when they could be earning a wage that pays for their accommodation and contributes back into the tax system.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 131 to 134, which seek to strengthen the Illegal Migration Bill by preventing spurious claims—whatever they may be—being used to resist the removal of those arriving in Britain illegally. The amendments aim to close any potential loopholes that would limit the Bill’s effectiveness.
I have listened carefully to many thoughtful and technically excellent speeches from hon. Friends and hon. Members across the Committee for whom I have the greatest respect. I cannot match their legal expertise and detailed understanding of the legal complexities of the Bill, but I want to argue for the principle of strengthening the Bill, which I think the Government have accepted, to ensure that it is effective. It is essential that it be effective, because more than 40,000 people arriving illegally on small boats in a year is a serious safety issue, national security issue and economic issue, with £6 million a day being spent on hotels to house migrants. It is a crime issue, with many illegal immigrants engaging in illegal activity or being drawn into slavery and exploitation. It is also a sovereignty issue. Many ask: who is really in control of British borders—our elected Parliaments or foreign courts?
If the Bill does not work and does not result in the swift deportation of those who arrive here illegally, it will not have a deterrent effect and we will not stop the boats. The objective of the amendments is therefore to strengthen the legislation to significantly reduce the likelihood of unjustified legal challenges that use human rights legislation that was never meant to provide cover to international gangs.
I thank Ministers for their consideration of the intention of the amendments. Some of those who oppose them and the Bill will cite compassion. I wholeheartedly agree that those who are genuinely fleeing war and persecution deserve our compassion. Many should be—and are—offered a home here in the UK. Our compassion should be directed at those who are genuinely helpless and without agency—such as children—but not those who have a choice about whether they leave their home country, or those who choose to exploit others through international human trafficking.
In many ways, this debate epitomises the great argument of our times between those whose understanding of human rights is that anyone should, more or less, do whatever and go wherever they want, and those who believe that strong boundaries, firm rules and proportionate restrictions are essential for strong families, communities and nations. It is an argument between those who think that, as a wealthy country, we somehow have unlimited resources and who do not acknowledge that population growth over recent years has seriously limited and stretched our capacity, for example on housing, and those who realise that even though we are in a wealthy and fortunate position, there are serious limits on our resources.
Many of those who argue against strong borders and strong action against illegal immigration are not personally affected by illegal immigration. Their wages are not threatened by the black market economy, they do not rely on essential local resources that are taken up with housing migrants, their children are not sent to school with young men who are clearly not children, and their sense of agency and national identity does not rest on the integrity of our borders or the sovereignty of our Parliament.
For those whose lives and culture are not negatively impacted by thousands of people arriving here on small boats, it makes sense to argue for open borders in the name of compassion, but for many people, including many of my constituents, those are luxury beliefs. The reality is that high and clearly visible levels of illegal immigration are a threat to ordinary people’s safety, security, identity and sense of fair play. Believing in and upholding strong borders and firm boundaries is not uncompassionate or bigoted; it is a prerequisite for a fair, safe and cohesive nation.
Ultimately, when boundaries are not upheld or laws not enforced, it is always the vulnerable that suffer, as criminals exploit loopholes and drain much needed finite resources away from those in genuine need. [Interruption.] I will not give way because I have been given a five-minute limit by the Chair.
We all want genuine asylum seekers to be able to find safety here in the UK. As the Minister said, this country is surpassed by only three other nations in our acceptance of refugees from UNHCR schemes. But the exploitation of our borders and laws by those who are not in genuine need and, worse, by abhorrent international people-smuggling gangs is neither fair nor compassionate and it must end. A strengthened Illegal Migration Bill will deter people from making the treacherous journey in small boats, and give us the resources and focus to go after those safe and legal routes that everyone in the House agrees should be there.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I rise to speak against the Government clauses before the Committee today and in favour of several amendments that seek to limit their horror and inhumanity.
The changes made by clauses 37 to 48 to the legal and human rights of asylum seekers breach the UK’s human rights obligations. The proposed timescales and tests, combined with the lack of judicial oversight, build in unfairness and undermine access to justice. It is difficult to see how a vulnerable and traumatised person will be able to engage with the process, especially as the provisions do not set out any right to legal advice and representation.
That is one of the many reasons that I support new clause 26 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), which would require an equality impact assessment about how people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 will be impacted by the Bill. Indeed, protections for vulnerable people, pregnant women and children are being tossed aside in favour of new powers to indefinitely detain people at greater risk of harm, including survivors of torture, trafficking and modern slavery.
The new and sweeping powers of arbitrary detention are nothing short of spine chilling. The Bill will increase the number of people detained, while removing the bulk of the essential safeguards that were put in place to protect people, adding to the inherent harm caused by indefinite detention. That is despite the UK’s immigration detention system being plagued by mismanagement, profiteering by private companies and incidents of systemic and direct abuse and neglect, including the scandals reported at Brook House immigration removal centre, the Manston short-term holding facility, Harmondsworth IRC and many others.
What is the purpose of this sweeping and illegitimate restriction of people’s liberties? What is the crime that such individuals have committed to be treated worse than serious criminals and to have fewer rights? Today, this Government propose to punish people for seeking asylum. Not satisfied with that, they seek to ensure that those people cannot challenge this injustice—all essentially to deter anyone else from coming to the UK to seek sanctuary. They are literally planning to persecute the already persecuted.
Denying access to asylum on such a basis undermines the very purpose for which the refugee convention was established. The convention explicitly recognises that refugees may be compelled to enter a country of asylum irregularly. The United Nations Refugee Agency has said:
“Most people fleeing war and persecution are simply unable to access the required passports and visas. There are no safe and ‘legal’ routes available to them.”
The reality is that the UK offers safety to far fewer refugees per capita than the average European country, such as France or Germany, and to far fewer than the countries neighbouring those from which 70% of the refugees from the global south flee. That is why I support new clause 10 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), which sets out a requirement to introduce a safe passage visa scheme. She has spoken eloquently about the stories behind the numbers and statistics—the people with real lives, hopes and dreams.
If the Government seriously wanted to protect the lives at risk from small boat crossings, they would back more generous family reunification rights and support safe, functioning routes. Instead, the Bill is the latest in a long line of measures that form their hostile environment and the toxic, racist and xenophobic narrative that is taking hold in many parts of the world, based on fear and the manipulation of that fear. It is immoral, deeply cruel and divisive. It breaks international law, it crushes human rights and it is shameful.
Tom Hunt
I have waited for a very long time to speak on the Bill. On Second Reading, I think I waited for four hours but did not get called. I have waited for a good amount of time today, too, but it has only made me more determined to get my points across.
I did not sign any of the amendments before the Committee, but I have sympathy with many of them, particularly amendment 131 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), amendment 132 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), and amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my hon. Friend and very senior colleague the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). Although it might surprise some people, I have a little bit of sympathy with amendments 72 to 75 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but I do not think that now—before we have sorted out the scourge of illegal immigration and its impact in this country—is the right time to pursue such amendments.
In a general sense, it will not surprise people to know that I welcome the Bill. We have 45,000 people a year entering the country illegally. They are mostly young men, as has been statistically proven; many are from safe-origin countries; and every single one of them has gone through France and multiple other safe European countries but has refused to claim asylum. They have decided to shop between different safe European countries, and they have come here. Being an economic migrant and moving to the UK because there are job opportunities here is a very noble dream, of course, but my advice to them is to engage with our legal migration points-based system, and we will make a determination as to whether their dream and our needs meet.
We are the party that believes in controlling our borders. We are the party that believes in strong border controls. Labour Members get incredibly sensitive whenever anybody suggests that they believe in open borders, but I simply say to them, “Show me the evidence. Show me the evidence that you believe in controlled immigration. Show me the evidence that you don’t believe in open borders. When I look at your record, every single thing you vote on is against precisely those things, so I don’t think it is unreasonable for me and colleagues to come to the conclusion that you are opposed to all border controls. As I say, show me the evidence.”
I turn to amendment 131. When the Rwanda policy was first introduced, a lot of us supported it because we saw what had happened in Australia. Australia had had a massive problem with illegal immigration, but it went down the route of offshore processing, and today it no longer has that massive problem. It is quite simple. A few Opposition Members are saying, “Australia did not work”, but we looked into this in detail and met Australian officials, and it did work. We think that going ahead with the Rwanda policy, if it were given a chance to work, would provide a significant deterrent. It would save lives at sea, and would enable us to operate the compassionate, controlled asylum system that virtually all of us in this place want.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), but before I do, I want to reflect on the unusual circumstances in which we once again find ourselves. This is the second time in only a few weeks that we have assembled to scrutinise a Bill in a Committee of the whole House. Both this and the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill are extraordinary pieces of legislation that threaten to break with international law and long-standing human rights conventions, which this nation once took great pride in championing, as the Home Secretary herself admits on the face of this Bill.
The Bill before us today is perhaps unprecedented in the scale and ferocity of the criticism that is attracted, not just in the UK but in the wider international community. The UNHCR has said that
“the effect of this Bill…undermines the very purpose for which the 1951 Refugee Convention was established”,
yet the Government have given Members just 12 hours to consider the Bill at this stage without any opportunity for taking evidence or for the kind of detailed, forensic scrutiny that would normally be found in Committee. By contrast, the Immigration Act 2016, which my party rightly opposed, represented a far less dramatic departure from international norms than this Bill, yet it went through 15 Committee sittings and received 55 pieces of written evidence. As the director of the Institute for Government has rightly observed, the Committee of the whole House is a useful mechanism to legislate on the most sensitive of matters, particularly those relating to the Northern Ireland Executive, but in the hands of this Prime Minister it has become a tool to steamroller through legislation and stifle dissent, which I fear will prove to have disastrous consequences.
Members of the House have the right to be afforded the time we need to scrutinise legislation properly, but that right counts for little compared with the rights of refugees fleeing unimaginable horrors in the pursuit of safety. I would not wish to give the House the impression that I believe this Bill is reformable in any way, far from it. This is an utterly hateful piece of legislation, the central purpose of which is to criminalise and demonise desperate men, women and children fleeing conflict and persecution.
As the Archbishop of York has rightly said, these proposals represent “cruelty without purpose.” We are entering the endgame of a dying Government who are devoid of any plan for the future of our country, who long ago lost the trust of the British people and who now believe their only hope of clinging to power is to stoke division, fear and xenophobic hatred, and to lay the blame for their own failings on innocent refugees.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam does not wish to press new clause 10 to a vote, but I have no doubt that she, like me, wishes to see the Bill in its entirety consigned to the scrapheap. She raises an incredibly important point about the necessity of establishing safe and legal routes for those who want to claim asylum. Without the promise of safe passage to the UK for those seeking sanctuary, the plans before the House today are destined to fail, as Ministers know all too well. They understand this Bill is little more than an attempt to stir division and to compound the misery of refugees for cheap political gain.
More importantly, I make it clear that I will never support the principle of differentiating between refugees based on how they arrive in this country, which is a clear violation of their convention rights. Establishing safe routes to Britain is the only way we can guarantee that no one is ever again forced to risk their life and the lives of loved ones on a small boat in the channel.
Finally, I remind the House that more than 230,000 visas were issued to Ukrainians last year. I have said many times that we should be doing far more to assist those fleeing the war in Ukraine but, to date, not a single Ukrainian has been forced to resort to small-boat crossings or people smugglers to reach the UK. Mercifully, not a single Ukrainian life has been lost in the channel. We have a model that already works, and it is time to ensure that everyone seeking refuge is able to get here safely. It is time to extend safe routes for all.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise to support the more than 50 amendments in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. We do not believe that this Bill, which is abhorrent in how it rips up people’s human rights, is fixable. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) suggested earlier, human rights are not a luxury. They are for everybody, everywhere, all at once. We should not try to remove them from anyone, particularly those who have suffered serious trauma.
We tabled our amendments to highlight the Bill’s many and varied deficiencies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who has been incredibly diligent in going through the Bill to see what we could take out to try to reverse some of its more harmful aspects.
In clause 37(7), for example, we aim to set tighter rules for the kinds of countries to which we might want to return people, because not all third countries are particularly safe. We should be much tighter about where we return people, which is a point to which I will return tomorrow.
Clauses 40(4)(a) and (b) outline the assurances the Government claim they will take into account in considering a serious harm suspensive claim:
“the Secretary of State must take into account the following factors—
(a) any assurances given by the government of the…territory specified in the removal notice; “
I guess the Government will just take it on trust when another Government say they will not do any harm to a person who might be a critic of that Government. They will just have to say, “Oh, no, it will be fine. Just return that person, and we will look after them.” We will not find out whether they will actually be looked after until after they have been returned.
Clause 40(4)(b) lists
“any support and services (including in particular medical services) provided by that government”.
I have had constituency cases of people receiving HIV/AIDS treatment in this country that has got their condition under control, but the Government cannot guarantee that they will be able to continue their treatment if they are returned to another country. In some cases, returning to a country where that condition cannot be managed is tantamount to a death sentence. A constituent of mine who is waiting for a decision on her case is in renal failure, but she cannot make progress with her treatment because the Home Office will not get its finger out and give her a decision. This is a very pressing issue. The Minister squints at me, but if he actually turned to any of the cases that I raise with him, we would make some progress.
Alison Thewliss
As the Minister well knows, it is to be set in regulations, which this Parliament cannot amend, so it is not for Parliament but for the Secretary of State. He knows how statutory instruments work in this place, as do we, and he knows that this is not something that this House can amend. He is being a bit economical with the truth if he is suggesting that the House can amend it; it cannot. He knows that.
What we are looking to do in amendment 179 and in the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) is to expand the list of those who should be consulted on this and to set a target, not a cap. It is not enough to set a cap. I ask Members to imagine that they are the 101st person with a cap set at 100. It could separate a family, separate siblings or separate a husband and wife who do not meet the threshold; they could just fall on the wrong side of the cap threshold. The Government need to do a whole lot more to make sure that we are actively doing our bit in the world, and setting a cap is nowhere near doing our bit in the world.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, because I will be speaking again tomorrow, but I wish to mention the issue around documents. It has been raised by several Members, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place. When Afghanistan fell, I was contacted by constituents who were terrified for their family members still in the country. Some 80 families in my constituency had relatives in Afghanistan, but I am aware of only two of them who were able to be reunited with their families. Clearly, the Government did not do enough. These are people who have family in this country, who could be safe and who could be out of Afghanistan, and they are not.
People in Afghanistan had documents. If the Taliban had found those documents on them, they would have seen that they had worked for British forces and that would have been a death sentence, so people in Afghanistan burned those documents. That is why people turn up here with no documents—those documents would have been their death sentence had they been found in their possession. Members on the Conservative Benches who seem to think that not having documents is some kind of admission of guilt fail to understand the very real pressures that asylum seekers face when they make these dangerous journeys, and when they try to seek sanctuary here to regain the relationships with the people whom they know. They will run and run and keep running until they find safety. That is the reality, and that is what the Bill denies people.
Yasmin Qureshi
I wish that I could say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I normally do, but I am actually incredibly sad about having to do so. The Bill is one of the most repugnant pieces of legislation that this Government have tried to pass through the House. First, this Government and the Home Secretary know that they are breaching human rights laws, and also that this legislation will not work. They want to go ahead with the Bill because they want to throw red meat to some of their voter base. They want to appeal to some of the hard right-wing voters in our country—the people who will be voting for the Conservative party when they see this legislation go through.
I do not make those allegations lightly. I have been here since the beginning of this debate and heard the justifications that Conservative Members have given, with “lefty lawyers” somehow being used as a term of abuse. I am a barrister—I spent many years studying to be one—and I find this Bill repugnant, so hon. Members might want to call me a lefty lawyer, but I spent 14 years doing nothing else but prosecuting. I worked for the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuting criminals, rapists, murderers, drug dealers and all sorts of really obnoxious people. Now I and people like me, if we are not supporting this Bill, are to be called “lefty liberals” or “lefty lawyers” or “woke” as a form of insult. Those who have to resort to that type of terminology are really scraping the bottom of the barrel. They have no argument left—if they had any proper argument, they would be making it.
We have heard much discussion of the European convention on human rights. It is surprising to hear everybody say, “Oh, the European Court did this to us.” Hang on, wake up—we actually signed up to the convention on human rights. We signed up to the refugee convention. We are a signatory to the NATO treaty. When states are signatories to those conventions, they are supposed to abide by them and, within the European convention on human rights, the European Court of Human Rights is part of the process. For the Government to think they can pick and choose what they do not like from it is outrageous.
The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) denigrated the European Court of Human Rights earlier. I asked him directly about the fact that in the 1970s a Conservative Government had legislation requiring virginity tests for young women applying to come into this country, and it was the European Court of Human Rights that declared it to be unlawful. When I asked whether he disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights, he side-stepped it and said he could not defend the Heath Government—but that was not my question. My question was fairly and squarely about whether he disagreed with that particular decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and the reason he avoided it was that he knows that decision by the Court was absolutely correct.
The European convention on human rights, as we know, was incorporated into the British Human Rights Act 1998. Section 19 of that Act says that every piece of legislation that comes before our Parliament must have a declaration on it to say it is compatible with human rights law. The Home Secretary knows full well that this legislation is not going to be. That is why, on the face of the Bill, she states that the Government are not sure whether it is compatible with human rights law—but when she goes on the television, she says, “Oh yes, it is compatible with human rights.” I would like her to tell us which one she thinks it is, because I can tell her that it is incompatible with any human rights convention and with our own Human Rights Act, passed by this Parliament.
I really think that Conservative Members should use a better argument. But what argument do they use? I have found it sickening, not just on this Bill, but in the whole debate on immigration and asylum for the last number of years, to hear politicians such as the Home Secretary saying that we are being swamped and invaded, and other hon. Members saying that we have 100 million people coming. Sometimes they say 1 billion people. Come off it! Everybody knows there are not 1 billion people trying to come into this country, nor 100 million refugees, because 84% of refugees normally go to the country nearest to them.
Moreover, of the people who have been coming on the boats recently, more than 75% were successful in their asylum claims. This narrative that Government and the media, the Daily Mail, the Express and The Sun, are running, that somehow they are all bogus asylum seekers, is a load of rubbish as well. I expected the media to talk rubbish—I expected them to lie—but it really pains me when elected Members of Parliament use that kind of divisive language.
It is because of that sort of divisive, disgusting language that we have had incidents of assault on people living in asylum hostels and incidents of others attacking them, swearing at them or protesting against them. That is because of the language that is used in this country in the discourse on immigration. I have to say to every hon. Member here, especially on the Government Benches, and the media, if they are listening, “Please, for God’s sake, just temper your language and do not peddle untruths.” That is what they are—untruths. A lot of those people are coming on boats because there is no alternative.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to be quite careful with her language when she says “your Government” and so on.
Yasmin Qureshi
Thank you for reminding me, Dame Rosie.
The Conservative Government have had control for the last 13 years, but they have not been able to deal with this. Instead of making proper constructive proposals, they have gone for the best headline in the Daily Mail—or should I say the “Daily Hate”? They do not think it is worth it. This legislation is absolutely horrendous. I am really sad that we are here again. A few years ago, we had the Nationality and Borders Bill and others. With every such Bill, it is said that we are going to control illegal migration. But guess what: nothing happens. It is all hot air; it is all smoke and mirrors. It is trying to fool the people of this country that you are trying to deal with something when you know you are not doing—
The First Deputy Chairman
Yes, but the hon. Lady needs to stop referring to “you”, which means me.
Yasmin Qureshi
I am sorry, Dame Rosie.
Many Members have spoken about various safe routes. Many suggestions have been made about how to deal with the small boats. Colleagues have spoken about the legal side of it. If there is any humanity in this Government, they should think about withdrawing the Bill and actually dealing with the small boats, and will they please stop trying to appease populist sentiment?
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak to the Liberal Democrat new clauses 3, 4 and 6. I struggle to put into words my dismay about the Bill. I have been listening since the beginning of the debate and, apart from a few Members who have spoken with real insight, Conservative Members cannot hide their frustration that, three years on from Brexit, we still do not control our borders and that we are in fact further away than ever from doing so. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Britain is only ever part of a global community—we do not rule it—and we get what we want only through co-operation; we will succeed in stopping illegal immigration only by co-operating, not by breaking international agreements.
No one can be opposed to stopping people traffickers who are exploiting desperate men, women and children, but the Bill is no way to go about that, and it will not be successful in preventing the boats from coming. All that it will achieve is to punish those who least deserve it. Will the Government finally listen to what we on the Opposition Benches have said for such a long time, which is that we must create safe, legal and effective routes for immigration if we are serious about a compassionate and fair system of immigration?
New clause 6 would facilitate a safe passage pilot scheme. New clause 4 would require the Home Secretary to set up a humanitarian travel scheme, allowing people from specified countries or territories to enter the UK to make an asylum claim on their arrival. The only way to ensure that refugees do not risk their lives in the channel is to make safe and effective legal routes available.
My inbox has been full of constituents’ outrage at the Government’s plans to abandon some of the most vulnerable people in the world. In Bath, we have welcomed refugees from Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, and we stand ready to do more. Meanwhile, the Government are intent on ending our country’s long and proud history as a refuge for those fleeing war and persecution.
The Home Secretary has been unable to confirm that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Clause 49 allows the Secretary of State to make provisions about interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights; the Law Society has raised concerns that that shows an intent to disregard the Court’s measures and break international law. The Government’s promises that people fleeing war and persecution could find a home in the UK through a safe and legal route must be true and real—they must not promise something that does not happen. Now is the time to put action behind the words. So far the Bill has not even defined what a safe and legal route is; on that, I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).
Let me give one example of why it is so important that we have safe and legal routes: Afghanistan. Just 22 Afghan citizens eligible for the UK resettlement scheme have arrived in the UK. The Minister said that we had taken thousands before the invasion of Kabul, but we are talking about a resettlement scheme set up in 2022, a year ago. Only 22 people have been resettled through that scheme. That is the question—we are not talking about what happened in 2015 or before the invasion of Kabul; we are talking about the safe and legal routes that the Government set up. The reality is that 22 Afghans have been resettled under the scheme, and the Minister cannot walk away from it.
It is a shameful record. Women and girls especially were promised safety, but have been left without a specific route to apply for. We cannot leave them to their fate. Every day we hear about the cruel way the Taliban treat women and girls, who are excluded from education and jobs. They have to do what they want to do in hiding and they are not safe. The Government have promised them safety, but they cannot come. We must ensure that this new promise of safe and legal routes cannot be broken.
The Bill sets out a cap on the number of refugees entering via safe routes, but it does not use a specific figure. There is also no obligation on the Government to facilitate that number of people arriving. The Government’s current record does not inspire confidence. The UK grants fewer asylum applications than the EU average. In 2022, only 1,185 refugees were resettled to the UK, nearly 80% fewer than in 2019. That is why the Government should support new clause 3, which requires the Secretary of State to set a resettlement target of at least 10,000 people each year.
Refugees make dangerous journeys because they are in danger. If we are serious about stopping illegal people trafficking, we must provide safe routes for refugees first, not punish refugees who have the right to be here first. As it stands, the Bill criminalises desperate people making perilous journeys to seek safety—refugees who are coming because they believe they will find sanctuary here. We must show them compassion. We must not show them our backs.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the Secretary of State for being here at the beginning of the debate and the Minister for being here now to hear our contributions. The issue has proven incredibly contentious in this Chamber and on social media. We have heard the views of so many—some more distasteful than others; I say that respectfully. The principle is that we have a clear responsibility to protect those who are most vulnerable, but we cannot extend the invitation to everyone, with no questions asked. We need to discuss the steps we can take to perfect our asylum system. I will speak to new clause 6 in relation to safe passage, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has raised significant concerns about this Bill in relation to parallels between trafficking, slavery and asylum. The Bill will have an unintended, but nevertheless devastating, impact on victims of modern slavery. The Committee has stated that illegal immigration is often used as a weapon to exploit people for profit, and that criminal gangs are often the ones luring vulnerable people on to boats and into the UK. Some 5,144 modern slavery offences were recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2019, an increase of 51% from the previous year. In addition, poverty, lack of education, unstable social and political conditions, economic imbalances, climate change and war are key issues that contribute to someone’s vulnerability and to becoming a victim of modern slavery. We cannot close the door on genuine victims of trafficking and slavery, and we cannot allow the Bill to undermine the security of victims.
I want to give a Northern Ireland perspective on this debate, if I can. According to recent Home Office statistics, nearly 550 people were potentially trafficked into Northern Ireland last year, an increase of 50% from 2021, when the figure was 363. In the past four years, the number of people referred through the national referral mechanism in Northern Ireland increased by 1,000%, so we have an issue—maybe we do not have the numerical amounts that are here on the UK mainland, but for us in Northern Ireland, these are key issues. I also wish to highlight new clause 19, which refers to the Bill’s extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to new clauses 24 and 25, which refer to Northern Ireland taking on three particular provisions relating to trafficking and exploitation. I believe it is important that we have the same opportunity to respond in a way that can help.
There is no doubt that detention due to asylum is going to have an incredible impact on some migrants. We are often too quick to group asylum seekers under the same label, forgetting that a large proportion of the women and young children who come here illegally come from war-torn countries, where they have been ripped away from their families and displaced, with no other option but to get out and to make the best of a potential life somewhere else. There are real, genuine cases out there—there are families who need legitimate help—and as a big-hearted country, I believe that we have a duty to provide that help.
Under the new legislation, the Home Office would be given new powers to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children, but those provisions only apply to England. I ask that they be extended to other areas of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as is being considered. When it comes to detention, there is no doubt that we do have to compare circumstances. There is a difference between those people who I just mentioned—the women and children who are displaced—and those who come with no children and no family, and who are usually young. They have the ability to build a new life elsewhere if possible, because they are healthy, whereas for women and children who have been forced out, detention policies need to be different.
To conclude, in order to keep within the time limit that others have adhered to, I am in support of some of the aspects of this needed Bill. I respect its contents and the Minister’s efforts to come up with a solution that strikes the right balance, but I think we all need some assurances about how it addresses the issues of modern slavery and trafficking, which too many people are forced into each year. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, the Minister and their Department will do all they can to ensure that this issue is dealt with, but given the sheer volumes and the impact that they are having on our country—on our great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—I urge that this be dealt with as a matter of national security and a matter of urgency: the quicker we get it sorted, the better. Let us also ensure that those people who are genuine asylum seekers are given the opportunity to come to this country. That is something I wish to see happen as well.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Let be me clear: this Bill is inhumane. It is not an illegal migration Bill: it is an anti-refugee Bill, and an extension of the failed hostile environment policy introduced by the Conservative party.
Mary Kelly Foy
No, I am not going to give way at this point; I have waited since 5.30 pm. Sorry, Bob.
Anti-refugee MPs have been emboldened by the Home Secretary’s rhetoric of hate, as we can see from the amendments and new clauses and by what we have heard from many Government Members. Unbelievably, the Bill has the potential to be even worse than when it came to the House on Second Reading. Let us not forget that the day after an immigration facility was attacked—it was firebombed—the Home Secretary spoke of an “invasion” of southern England. It has been reported today that the Home Secretary even fuelled a rebellion against her own Bill in order to introduce tougher amendments.
Robert Jenrick
This has been an excellent debate covering the provisions of the Bill relating to legal proceedings, the cap on the number of refugees to be admitted through new safe and legal routes, and safe countries of origin.
Let me deal briefly with the substantive Government amendments in this group. First, new clause 11 enables the Senior President of Tribunals to request first-tier tribunal judges, including employment tribunal judges, to sit as judges of the upper tribunal. This amendment extends existing deployment powers, which are an important tool for the judiciary to manage the fluctuations in demand in our courts and make best use of their time.
We have also brought forward new clause 12, which enables appeals under the Bill to be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission rather than the upper tribunal in appropriate cases. That is necessary to safeguard the sensitive material that would cause harm to the public or individuals if it were revealed in open court. The test for certifying suspensive claims will require that the Home Secretary certify that the decision being taken relies partly or wholly on information that in her opinion should not be made public. I hope that those Government amendments will receive the support of the Committee of the whole House.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. He will recall that, at the beginning of the debate, I raised a point of order about the fact that he, on 19 December, said that when Labour left office in 2010, the asylum “backlog…was 450,000”—his words. I have received a letter from the UK Statistics Authority completely debunking that claim. It says that in fact the backlog was 19,000, and the backlog now is 166,000. As he is at the Dispatch Box, I thought it would be a perfect opportunity for him to apologise to the House and to correct the record, as per his duties under the ministerial code.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for looking out for me. It is understandable that there would be confusion on this point because, as I think the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), said on Second Reading, the situation that we inherited in 2010 was a complete shambles. Indeed, a former Labour Home Secretary described the Department as “not fit for purpose”. What we were referring to was John Vine, who was the chief inspector of borders and immigration. He conducted a report into the shambolic handling of immigration by the last Labour Government, and he said:
“In 2007, the UK Border Agency created the”—
euphemistically titled—
“Case Resolution Directorate…to conclude approximately 400,000-450,000 unresolved legacy records.”
He said:
“Such was the inefficiency of this operation that at one point over 150 boxes of post, including correspondence from applicants, MPs and their legal representatives, lay unopened in a room in Liverpool.”
That room, I am told, was colloquially known as the “room of doom”. Well, we are fixing the system, and I am pleased to say—
Robert Jenrick
No, I am not going to give way again. The hon. Member has had his moment. I am pleased to say that, as a result of the work that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have already done, the legacy backlog is falling rapidly, and we intend to meet our commitment to clear it over the course of the year.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, so let me turn to the key points that have been raised tonight. First, with respect to the powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others relating to the important question of injunctive relief, rule 39, and how we as a sovereign Parliament handle ourselves and ensure that we secure our borders, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions and I recognise the positive intention of the amendments they have tabled. I am keen to give them an undertaking that I will engage with them and other colleagues who are interested in these points ahead of Report.
We are united in our determination that the Bill will be robust, that it will be able to survive the kind of egregious and vexatious legal challenges we have seen in the past, and that it will enable us to do the job and remove illegal immigrants to safe third countries such as Rwanda. I would add that the Bill has been carefully drafted in collaboration with some of the finest legal minds, and we do believe that it enables us to do the job while complying with our international law obligations. However, we are going to engage closely with colleagues and ensure that the final Bill meets the requirements of all those on our side of the Chamber.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Let me speak briefly about the point raised by a number of colleagues about rule 39 and the events of last summer. The Government share the frustration, certainly of Conservative Members, about what happened with the Rwanda flight in June. A case was conducted late at night at the last minute, with no chance for us to make our case or appeal its decision. That was deeply flawed. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) was right when she said, in a thoughtful contribution, that that raises concerning issues. I think it raises issues of natural justice that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and others in Government are taking up with the European Court of Human Rights. We want to find a more satisfactory way for the Court to behave in such circumstances in future.
Let me turn briefly to the swathe of amendments tabled by the Scottish National party. At this rate, there will be more SNP amendments to the Bill than there are refugees whom they accommodate in Scotland. Instead of pruning the already excessive forest of legal challenges that we find, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) proposes a Kafkaesque array of new ones. She wants to turn the robust scheme in the Bill into a sieve, and we cannot allow that to happen. The mandate of the British public is clear: they want us to stop the boats. That is what the Bill does, and that is what we intend to achieve.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his contribution. We have listened carefully to his arguments. As the Prime Minister said, it is precisely because we want to help genuine refugees that we need to take full control of our borders. Safe and legal routes, such as those we have brought forward in recent years, which have enabled almost half a million people to come to our country for humanitarian purposes since 2015, are exactly how we will achieve that. I commit to engage with my hon. Friend and other colleagues ahead of Report on setting up safe and legal routes, if necessary by bringing forward further amendments to ensure that there are new routes in addition to the existing schemes, and accelerating the point at which they become operational, with our intention being to open them next year. I also confirm that we will accelerate the process of launching the local authority consultation on safe and legal routes at the same time as the commencement of the Bill. I hope that satisfies my hon. Friend.
As a former Secretary of State for local government, one provision in the Bill—it was mentioned by a number of colleagues on the Conservative Benches but curiously not by those on the Opposition Benches—is extremely important to me. Government Members will not make promises in this place at the expense of local authorities and our constituents. For the first time, not only will we bring forward more safe and legal routes, but we will first consult with local communities and local authorities, so that those routes are not virtue signalling, but are wedded to the genuine capacity and ability of our communities to house people, to find GP surgery appointments and school places, and to bring those individuals into the country while ensuring that community tensions are not raised unnecessarily. That is a critical distinction.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, I will give way, because at one point in his remarks he said that he was for the cap, and then he said he was against it. Perhaps he can explain.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Gentleman is making good points about local authority consultation. Will he therefore support new clause 27 tomorrow, which would make it a legal requirement for the Home Office to consult local authorities before deciding on hotels?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman should read the Bill. We have been debating it for the past five and a half hours, but he does not seem to have read it. The Bill says, for the very first time, that before we create a safe and legal route we will consult with local authorities. We should all see that as a good step forward. The public are sick of hotels being filled with illegal immigrants and they do not want the wellbeing of illegal immigrants put above that of the British public. That is a crucial change we are making.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you for allowing me to speak again, Mr Evans.
What we have had today is an absolute disgrace of a debate. The timetabling of this really important Bill has been absolutely shocking. Whatever side of the debate we are on, we must understand that it is of incredible constitutional significance. There are questions here about whether we are breaking some absolutely fundamental treaty obligations, yet we have been treated to nothing more than a few slogans and not a single effort to address any of the amendments we tabled in good faith. Those amendments were not just tabled off my own bat, but in consultation with the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—lots of respected organisations that deserve to have their voice heard here and deserve to be treated with respect by this Government. The whole process has been an absolute embarrassment to Parliament. Where is the impact assessment we should have had before the Bill? That is just as disgraceful as the lack of respect for the amendments tabled today.
What we have had today is not a serious debate. We have had slogans and dog-whistle rhetoric. We have a Government who have shown that they are all slogans and absolutely no respect for Parliament.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am anticipating four Divisions and I will try to assist the House as to when they are likely to happen. First, we go to Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
In the light of the firm and clear assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Minister in relation to my amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 76, in clause 37, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert:
“(a) a protection claim, (b) a human rights claim, or (c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”—(Alison Thewliss.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Illegal Migration Bill
Tuesday 28th March 2023
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 28 March 2023 - (28 Mar 2023)
19:46 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 242 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:01 - divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 299 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:37 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair: Dame Rosie, Mr Evans or Sir Roger. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable. Like yesterday, I advise Members that a lot of people wish to speak, so if they focus on making shorter contributions, everybody will get an equal shout.
Clause 2
Duty to make arrangements for removal
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 186, page 2, line 32, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 139, page 2, line 33, leave out “four” and insert “five”.
This amendment adds a fifth condition to the duty to remove.
Amendment 187, page 2, line 33, at end insert
“subject to the exceptions in subsection (1A).”
Amendment 188, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This section does not apply to a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK”.
Amendment 189, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country.”
Amendment 190, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This section does not apply to a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection.”
Amendment 191, page 2, line 33, at end insert–
“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (L) where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if L is removed in accordance with this section.”
Amendment 192, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This clause does not apply to persons who there are reasonable grounds to suspect are victims of torture.”
Amendment 195, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This clause does not apply to persons who there are reasonable grounds to suspect are victims of trafficking or slavery.”
Amendment 196, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This clause does not apply to an individual who meets the definition of an “adult at risk” in paragraph 7 of the Home Office Guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”
Amendment 282, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This clause does not apply to a person who has been diagnosed with AIDS or as HIV positive.”
Amendment 193, page 3, line 8, after “person” insert
“is not a citizen of Ukraine, and”.
Amendment 194, page 3, line 8, after “person” insert
“does not have family members in the United Kingdom, and”.
Amendment 197, page 3, line 9, leave out “on or after 7 March 2023” and insert
“more than one month after this section comes into force”.
Amendment 285, page 3, line 11, at end insert
“with which the United Kingdom has a formal legally binding agreement to facilitate returns required under this section, and”.
This amendment would restrict the duty to arrange removal of people who travelled to the UK through a safe third country to cases where that country has a formal, legally binding agreement with the UK Government on migration returns.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 12, after “race” insert “gender”.
This amendment would explicitly add persecution on the basis of gender as potential reasons for the purposes of the third condition.
Amendment 198, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) Subsection (4) is to be interpreted in accordance with article 31(1) of the United Nations Convention on Refugees.”
Amendment 123, page 3, line 18, leave out from “they” to end of line 19 insert
“lawfully settled or found protection in another country outside the United Kingdom where they faced no serious risk of persecution or violations of their human rights and which complies with the requirements of the 1951 Convention on Refugees”.
This amendment would redefine “in both cases” so that it complies with the meaning of that phrase in Article 31 of the Refugee Convention as interpreted by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
Amendment 140, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“(6A) The fifth condition is that the person was either—
(a) aged 18 or over, or
(b) under the age of 18 and was in the care of an individual over the age of 18,
at the time they entered the United Kingdom.”
Amendment 199, page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 200, page 3, line 41, leave out “unaccompanied”.
Amendment 6, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings related to people smuggling offences, and that it is necessary for the person to remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of such cooperation.”
This amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people assisting with investigations or prosecutions for people smuggling offences, similar to the exemption provided by clause 21 for victims of modern slavery.
Amendment 70, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the person enters the United Kingdom from Ireland across the land border with Northern Ireland.”
This amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people who arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland.
Amendment 136, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(12) Accommodation provided by the Secretary of State to a person who meets the conditions in this section must not include hotel accommodation.”
This amendment is intended to restrict the use of hotels by those who meet the conditions in clause 2.
Amendment 284, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(12) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, lay a report before Parliament on the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom under this section.”
Clause stand part.
Amendment 201, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, leave out “Unaccompanied.”
Amendment 141, page 4, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on the addition of the fifth condition.
Amendment 202, page 4, line 7, leave out
“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”
and insert
“if the person is a child or arrived in the United Kingdom as a child”.
Amendment 295, page 4, line 7, leave out
“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”
and insert
“where the person is an unaccompanied child or is a person who arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child.”
This amendment seeks to remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to remove a person where the person has ceased to be an unaccompanied child.
Amendment 148, page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment seeks to remove the provision in the Bill which enables the Secretary of State to remove unaccompanied children from the UK.
Amendment 203, page 4, line 11, at end insert “but only if—
(a) it is in the child’s best interests, and
(b) in accordance with UN Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
Amendment 204, page 4, line 12, leave out “unaccompanied”.
Amendment 205, page 4, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (c).
Amendment 206, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 283, page 4, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) For the purposes of this section, if C claims to be under the age of 18, but the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to dispute this claim, C’s age may be verified by a scientific age assessment.
(6B) A scientific age assessment conducted under this section may only entail medical methods, which may include x-ray examination.
(6C) A scientific age assessment may be conducted regardless of whether C has given consent.
(6D) The process or conclusion of the scientific age assessment is final and is not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 299, in clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out
“or the power in section 3(2)”.
This amendment would remove the requirement, in relation to unaccompanied children, to disregard relevant protection claims, human rights claims, slavery or human trafficking claims, and applications for judicial review.
Amendment 208, page 4, line 39, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 294, page 5, line 2, leave out from “(2)” to the end of line 2 and insert
“must be considered under the immigration rules if the person who made the claim has not been removed from the United Kingdom within a period of six months starting on the day the claim is deemed inadmissible.”
Amendment 209, page 5, line 2, at end insert
“until such time as the Secretary of State withdraws her declaration under subsection (2), or a successful appeal is brought under subsection (4A)”.
Amendment 212, page 5, line 4, leave out “not”.
Amendment 213, page 5, line 5, leave out “no” and insert “a”.
Amendment 210, page 5, line 7, at end insert “subject to subsection (4A)”.
Amendment 135, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) No court shall make any order to the effect that a person removed pursuant to the duty in section 2 (1) shall be returned to the United Kingdom.”.
This amendment is intended to block courts from ordering individuals to be returned to the UK.
Amendment 211, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(4A) If no removal takes place and no decision is made on a person’s protection or human rights claim within six months of a person’s arrival, then the declaration that such a claim is inadmissible is to be treated as a refusal of the claim giving rise to a right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 214, in clause 5, page 5, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).
Amendment 301, page 5, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would prevent unaccompanied children being removed to the countries listed in subsection (3), including countries listed as “safe” under new section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (see clause 50).
Amendment 13, page 6, line 33, at end insert—
“(c) in a case where P is a national of a country to which their return may reasonably be expected to constitute a breach of Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951.”
This amendment would add to the list of exceptional circumstances, in which a person should not be returned to a country of origin ordinarily considered safe, cases in which their removal may reasonably be expected to constitute a breach of the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.
Amendment 215, page 6, line 39, at end insert—
“and the following conditions are met–
(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the country or territory;
(b) the country or territory meets the definition of safe state set out in section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information;
(c) the person has been declared inadmissible under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or section 4(2) of this Act;
(d) the country or territory in question is the country or territory with which the person was found to have a connection under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(e) taking into account the person’s individual circumstances, it is reasonable for them to go to that country or territory; and
(f) the person is not a national of that country or territory.”
Amendment 216, page 7, line 3, at end insert—
“and the following conditions are met—
(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the country or territory;
(b) the country or territory meets the definition of third country set out in section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information;
(c) the person has been declared inadmissible under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or section 4(2) of this Act;
(d) the country or territory in question is the country or territory with which the person was found to have a connection under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(e) taking into account the person’s individual circumstances, it is reasonable for them to go to that country or territory; and
(f) the person is not a national of that country or territory.”
Amendment 306, page 7, line 10, at end insert—
“(11A) For the purposes of removal under this section—
(a) where persons arrive in the United Kingdom as a family group, the provisions of this section must apply to them as if they were a single person so that, if they are removed, they are removed to the same country which must satisfy all the provisions of this section in relation to each person;
(b) “family group” means two or more persons who have any of the following relationships—
(i) parent, child, sibling, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, cousin, husband, wife, grandparent, grandchild, legal guardian, or
(ii) any other relationship which may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that family members arriving in the UK together would be removed to the same country. For example, this amendment would prevent a husband being removed to a country listed in the Schedule only in respect of men, with the wife being removed to a different country listed in the Schedule.
Clause 5 stand part.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 17, in clause 6, page 8, line 12, after “international organisations” insert
“including but not limited to, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.
This amendment would add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to information from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees when considering whether to add new countries or territories to the Schedule of safe third countries to which a person may be removed.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 142, in clause 7, page 8, line 22, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line 24.
This amendment is consequential on the addition of the fifth condition.
Amendment 138, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) P may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer has given a notice in writing to P stating—
(a) that P meets the four conditions set out in section 2;
(b) that a safe and legal route to the United Kingdom from P’s country of origin existed which P could have followed but did not follow;
(c) that the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b) has been approved by both Houses of Parliament in the previous 12 months as safe, legal and accessible to persons originating in the relevant country; and
(d) the number of successful applications for asylum in each of the previous five years by persons following the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b).
(1B) Any determination by the Secretary of State to remove P from the United Kingdom based on information provided by the notice referred to in subsection (1A) may be subject to judicial review on the basis that the information was flawed, and the Secretary of State may not remove P from the United Kingdom while any such judicial review is ongoing.”
This amendment would prevent the Home Secretary removing a person from the United Kingdom unless and until the Secretary of State has confirmed that a safe and legal route existed but that the person nevertheless chose to follow an alternative route which resulted in them arriving in the United Kingdom without leave.
Amendment 121, page 8, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(ba) any protection claim, human rights claim, claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made by P has been resolved, and
(bb) any application by P for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act has concluded.”
This amendment would make clear that no one can be removed from the UK until their protection claim, human rights claim, claim to be a victim of slavery or trafficking has been resolved or their application for judicial review in relation to their removal has concluded.
Amendment 18, page 8, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) A notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) be provided in a language understood by that person, and
(b) provide information about how that person may access legal advice.”
This amendment would require the notices of removal to be provided in a language understood by the recipient, and to include information about how the recipient may access legal advice.
Amendment 217, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 218, page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (8).
Government amendments 165 to 167.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 219, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, after “family” insert “who arrives with P and”.
Government amendment 168.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 286, in clause 9, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
“(8) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date on which this section comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of this Act on—
(a) Government expenditure on asylum support; and
(b) the use of contingency accommodation (including the specific use of hotels)
provided under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”
Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.
Amendment 220, in clause 11, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 36.
Amendment 221, page 13, leave out from the beginning of line 37 to the end of line 28 on page 14.
Government amendment 169.
Amendment 143, page 14, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert—
“(2G) Detention under sub-paragraph (2C) or (2D) is to be treated as detention under sub-paragraph 16 (2) for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).”
This amendment would remove the provision which enables a person of any age to be detained “in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate” and would reapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children.
Amendment 65, page 14, line 38, at end insert
“provided that it is compliant with the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and that local residents who may be affected are properly consulted.”
Amendment 71, page 14, line 38, at end insert
“, except in the case of an unaccompanied child or where a relevant family member is aged under 18, in which case sub-paragraph (2H) applies.
(2H) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the Secretary of State must consult and take into account the advice of the Children’s Commissioner as to whether—
(a) detention of the child or young person is compatible with the rights of the child or young person, and
(b) whether the place proposed for detention is suitable for ensuring the well-being of the child or young person.
(2I) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, subject to any appropriate redactions of personal data, advice received from the Children’s Commissioner under sub-paragraph (2H).”
This amendment is intended to give the Children’s Commissioner (who has responsibility for the welfare of under-18s in reserved/excepted matters across the UK) a role in ensuring that their rights are taken into account in the detention decision, and that any detention accommodation secures their welfare.
Amendment 145, page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove the provisions which disapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of children and their families.
Amendment 222, page 15, leave out lines 27 to 43.
Amendment 223, page 15, leave out from the beginning of line 44 to the end of line 34 on page 16.
Amendment 144, page 16, line 40, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
“(2E) Detention under subsection (2A) or (2B) is to be treated as detention under sub-paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).”
This amendment would remove the provision which enables a person of any age to be detained “in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate” and would reapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children.
Amendment 147, page 16, line 40, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—
“(2E) Detention under subsection (2A) or (2B) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B of Schedule 2 of that Act.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 146.
Amendment 21, page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (11).
This amendment seeks to remove the provisions which disapply existing statutory time limits on detention of pregnant women to people detained under powers set out in this clause.
Clause 11 stand part.
Amendment 226, in clause 12, page 17, line 20, leave out
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 227, page 17, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 28.
Amendment 228, page 17, line 42, leave out
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 229, page 18, line 1, leave out “reasonably”.
Amendment 230, page 18, line 2, leave out
“the Secretary of State considers to be”.
Amendment 231, page 18, line 39, leave out
“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 232, page 19, leave out lines 1 to 4.
Amendment 233, page 19, leave out lines 11 to 20.
Clause 12 stand part.
Amendment 234, in clause 13, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 124, page 21, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 22.
This amendment would remove the prohibition, for the first 28 days of detention, on the grant of immigration bail by the First-tier tribunal and the ouster of judicial review of detention.
Amendment 235, page 21, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
Government amendments 170 and 171.
Clauses 13 and 14 stand part.
Amendment 238, in clause 15, page 22, line 30, at end insert—
“(1A) The power in clause (1) may only be exercised if the exercise of that power is in the best interests of the child, or children, being provided for.”
Amendment 239, page 22, line 34, leave out “may” and insert
“must, as necessary to secure the best interests of the child,”.
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 240, in clause 16, page 23, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 241, page 23, line 3, leave out
“on a certain date (the transfer date)”
and insert
“as soon as reasonably practical”.
Amendment 242, page 23, line 10, leave out subsections (4) to (8).
Clause 16 to 18 stand part.
Amendment 246, in clause 19, page 24, line 27, at end insert
“but only with the consent of the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.
Amendment 247, in clause 21, page 25, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period, or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 24, page 25, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order, within the terms of section 63(3) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”
Amendment 125, page 25, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(aa) grounds of public order prevent that person being provided with a recovery and reflection period in accordance with Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 126 and 127, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.
Amendment 126, page 25, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment, together with Amendment 127, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.
Amendment 292, page 26, line 2, at end insert—
“(d) a decision has been made by a competent authority that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of sexual exploitation (“positive reasonable grounds decision”).”
This amendment seeks to remove potential victims of sexual exploitation from the provisions requiring them to be removed.
Amendment 127, page 26, line 25, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This amendment, together with Amendment 126, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.
Amendment 291, page 26, line 36, at end insert—
“(9A) A person whose removal from the United Kingdom is enabled by subsection (2), shall only be removed to a state that is a signatory to—
the European Convention on Human Rights, and
the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking.”
This amendment seeks to restrict the removal of victims of modern slavery to countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Trafficking Convention.
Clause 21 stand part.
Amendment 249, in clause 22, page 27, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 288, page 27, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment seeks to remove the bill’s restrictions on the provision of modern slavery support to those subject to the provisions in clause 2.
Clause 22 stand part.
Amendment 289, in clause 23, page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 288.
Clause 23 stand part.
Amendment 290, in clause 24, page 29, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 288.
Clause 24 stand part.
Amendment 250, in clause 25, page 30, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment leaves out an exception to the general sunset provision relating to Scottish trafficking legislation.
Amendment 251, page 30, line 39, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
This amendment removes provisions allowing the Secretary of State, in regulations, to make certain provisions which would alter the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24.
Clause 25 stand part.
Amendment 252, in clause 26, page 31, line 26, leave out “25(3)(c)” and insert “25(3)(b) or (c)”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that certain regulations altering the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24 require use of the draft affirmative procedure.
Amendment 253, page 31, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (6).
This amendment would remove powers to allow revival of provisions excluding trafficking and slavery protections without using the draft affirmative procedure.
Clauses 26 and 27 stand part.
Amendment 129, in clause 28, page 33, line 25, leave out “to deportation” and insert “for removal”.
The purpose of this amendment is to replace the term “deportation” with “removal”.
Amendment 130, page 33, line 25, at end, insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any primary or secondary legislation relating to immigration, asylum, criminal justice and counter-terrorism, including this Act, in order to replace consistently the terms “deport” or “deportation” with “remove” or “removal”.”
The purpose of this amendment is to replace the terms “deport’” and “deportation” with “remove” and “removal” consistently across all relevant existing UK law.
Clause 28 stand part.
Amendment 254, in clause 29, page 33, leave out lines 36 to 40.
Amendment 255, page 34, line 5, leave out “ever”.
This amendment, along with Amendment 256, would ensure persons were not excluded permanently from leave to enter or remain.
Amendment 256, page 34, line 7, after “United Kingdom)” insert
“at any time in the last three years”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 255.
Amendment 257, page 34, leave out lines 8 to 12.
Amendment 258, page 34, line 13, after “(5)” insert
“and such other exceptions as may be set out in immigration rules”.
Amendment 259, page 34, line 14, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 260, page 34, line 24, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 261, page 34, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
Amendment 262, page 34, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, along with Amendments 263 and 264, seeks to require the Home Secretary to admit a person to the United Kingdom, or allow them to remain, if necessary to comply with international obligations.
Amendment 263, page 34, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 262.
Amendment 264, page 35, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 262.
Amendment 265, page 35, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 20.
Clause 29 stand part.
Amendment 304, in clause 30, page 35, line 31, leave out “has ever met” and insert
“is over the age of 18 at the time of entry into the United Kingdom and meets”.
This amendment seeks to exclude children, whether as unaccompanied children or as members of a family, from the disapplication of future grants of British citizenship.
Amendment 266, page 35, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment and Amendments 267 to 271 would remove provisions preventing children born in the United Kingdom from ever accessing UK citizenship, because their parents had at any point in the past met the conditions in section 2.
Amendment 267, page 36, line 24, leave out subsection (8).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Clause 30 stand part.
Amendment 268, in clause 31, page 36, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 269, page 37, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 270, in clause 32, page 37, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Amendment 271, page 37, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.
Clause 32 to 34 stand part.
Amendment 274, in clause 35, page 38, line 8, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 182, page 38, line 14, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may determine that the person is not to be an “ineligible person” for the purposes of sections 31 to 34 if the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling circumstances which apply in relation to the person which mean that it is appropriate to do so.”
This amendment would allow similar discretion to consider, exceptionally, applications for citizenship from those otherwise excluded as the Secretary of State will have in relation to applications for leave to remain, entry clearance and ETA under Clause 29.
Clause 35 stand part.
Amendment 275, in clause 36, page 38, line 17, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
Amendment 276, page 39, line 12, leave out subsections (10) and (11).
Amendment 277, page 39, line 35, leave out subsections (15) and (16).
Clause 36 stand part.
Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.
Amendment 59, in clause 54, page 54, line 34, leave out paragraphs (c) to (h).
This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.
Amendment 175, page 55, line 9, leave out paragraph (k).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 174.
Amendment 174, page 55, line 14, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under section 51 (cap on number of entrants using safe and legal routes) are subject to a special super-affirmative procedure (see subsections (4B) and (4C)).
(4B) The number specified in regulations under section 51 must be the number specified in a resolution of the House of Commons agreed as a result of an amendable motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.
(4C) Regulations under section 51 may not be made unless a draft of the instrument specifying the number agreed by the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4B) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
The intention of this Amendment is that the target number of entrants using safe and legal routes to be specified in regulations under clause 51 should be amendable by Parliament.
Clause 54 stand part.
Government amendment 172.
Clause 55 stand part.
Amendment 60, in clause 56, page 56, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.
Clause 56 stand part.
Amendment 63, in clause 57, page 56, line 19, at end insert
“provided that the impact assessment required by section (impact assessment)has been laid before Parliament.”
This amendment is consequential on NC5.
Government amendment 66.
Amendment 64, page 56, line 22, after “sections” insert “(impact assessment) and”.
This amendment is consequential on NC5.
Amendment 61, page 56, line 32, leave out paragraphs (e) to (h).
This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.
Amendment 278, page 56, line 33, leave out paragraph (f).
Amendment 280, page 56, line 34, leave out paragraph (g).
Amendment 73, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(o) section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.
Amendment 50, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations under subsection (1) bring into force the provisions in sections 21 to 28 on modern slavery.
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) above, the Secretary of State may not make regulations until after an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has been—
(a) appointed; and
(b) consulted by the Secretary of State on the potential implications of the relevant sections.”
This amendment is intended to delay the entry into force of the Bill’s provisions on modern slavery until such time as the Secretary of State has appointed and consulted with a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.
Amendment 279, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 23 may come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, if the Scottish Parliament has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
Amendment 281, page 57, line 2, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 24 may come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, if the Northern Ireland Assembly has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
Amendment 74, page 57, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) until regulations specifying safe and legal routes have been made under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations].”
Amendment 287, page 57, line 7, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of this section coming into force, publish and lay before Parliament all relevant impact assessments carried out by the Government in relation to measures set out in this Act.
(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), “relevant impact assessments” includes, but is not limited to—
(a) assessments of the potential financial costs which may be incurred by the implementation of all measures set out in this Act;
(b) assessments of whether implementation of measures set out in each section of this Act could amount to a breach of any obligations of the United Kingdom under relevant domestic and international laws; and
(c) equality impact assessments.”
This amendment seeks to require the publication of a full set of impact assessments for the bill within 30 days of its coming into force.
Clause 57 stand part.
Amendment 293, in clause 58, page 57, line 9, leave out “Illegal Migration” and insert
“Migration, Asylum and Modern Slavery (Removals)”.
Clause 58 stand part.
New clause 1—Limits on detention—
“(1) No person under the age of 18 may be detained in asylum accommodation at any time.
(2) No person aged 18 or over may be detained in asylum accommodation for more than 28 days.”
New clause 2—Smuggling—
“(1) Not less than six months before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report to Parliament regarding discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken or proposed to prevent or deter a person from—
(a) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;
(b) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.
(2) The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers.
New clause 5—Impact assessment—
“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact assessment regarding the expected effectiveness of the changes made by this Act in stopping, or reducing the number of, Channel crossings from France by asylum seekers.”
New clause 8—Immigration rules since December 2020: report on effects—
“(1) Before bringing any provisions of this Act into force by regulations, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of its immigration rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.
(2) The areas to be covered by the report must include but are not limited to—
(a) food supply;
(b) fuel supply;
(c) hospitality and tourism;
(d) the NHS;
(e) social care; and
(f) construction.”
This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.
New clause 9—Operational efficiency—
“(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must commission a management review, to be undertaken by management experts outside the Home Office, of—
(a) the efficiency of the processing by UK Visas and Immigration of applications, and
(b) the efficiency of the removal by Immigration Control of persons whose leave to remain has expired.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
(a) “efficiency” includes fairness, and
(b) the review must include information regarding the numbers of appeals and their success rate.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent management review of the efficiency of UK Visas and Immigration in processing applications and the efficiency of the removal process for those whose leave to remain has expired.
New clause 14—Independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system—
“(1) The Government must commission an independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system, including the support needs for young asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers, and refugees up to the age of 25.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022). It establishes a statutory duty on the government to commission an independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system and ensure the presentation of its findings are presented to Parliament within 6 months of the Act.
New clause 15—Independent child trafficking guardian—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable an independent child trafficking guardian to be appointed to assist, support and represent a child to whom subsection (2) applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a child if a relevant authority determines that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child—
(i) is, or may be, a victim of the offence of human trafficking, or
(ii) is vulnerable to becoming a victim of that offence, and
(b) no person in the United Kingdom is a person with parental rights or responsibilities in relation to the child.”
This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022). It would oblige the Secretary of State to provide every asylum seeker under the age of 18 with an Independent Child Trafficking Guardian to support their interactions with immigration and asylum processes.
New clause 16—Child protection workers—
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the training and deployment of child protection workers to work with child migrants on the French coast.”
This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022).
New clause 18—Rights and wellbeing of children—
“(1) In the exercise of duties and powers under this Act in relation to any individual who arrived in the UK as a child, the Secretary of State must have as the primary consideration the need to ensure and promote the best interests of the individual, including but not limited to—
(a) the right to a family life;
(b) the right to education;
(c) the safeguarding duties of public authorities;
(d) their safety, health, and wellbeing; and
(e) their physical, psychological and emotional development.
(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must assure parity of treatment of all children under the age of 18 currently resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out details of how the Secretary of State has complied with the duties set out in this section.”
This new clause would confer a safeguarding duty on the Secretary of State in relation to all child asylum seekers (unaccompanied or not), including the need to ensure the parity of standards between safeguarding provisions for child asylum seekers and other children in the UK.
New clause 21—Organised immigration crime enforcement—
“(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 after subsection (10) insert—
“(11) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised crime, where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel.
(12) The NCA must maintain a unit (a “Cross-Border People Smuggling Unit”) to coordinate the work undertaken in cooperation with international partners in pursuit of the function mentioned in subsection (11).””
This new clause would give the National Crime Agency a legal responsibility for tackling organised immigration crime across the Channel, and to maintain a specific unit to undertake work related to that responsibility.
New clause 22—Asylum backlog: reporting requirements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Bill was published, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the steps taken and progress made toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims, within the preceding three- month period.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, “the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” means the total number of asylum applications on which an initial decision had not yet been made as of 13 December 2022.
(3) In preparing the reports required by subsection (1) above, “progress toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” may be measured with reference to—
(a) the number and proportion of applications on which an initial decision is made within six months of the submission of the application;
(b) changes to guidance for asylum caseworkers on fast- track procedures for straightforward applications;
(c) measures to improve levels of recruitment and retention of specialist asylum caseworking staff; and
(d) any other measures which the Secretary of State may see fit to refer to in the reports.”
This new clause seeks to require regular reports from the Secretary of State on progress toward eliminating the asylum backlog.
New clause 27—Accommodation: duty to consult—
“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3A) insert—
“(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.
(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.””
This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.
New clause 28—Detention: impact assessment—
“The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date on which sections 11 to 14 of this Act come into force, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of any necessary expansion of the detention estate required as a consequence of the number of people detained under those sections, and any costs associated with that expansion.”
This new clause seeks to require the publication of an impact assessment for the bill’s impact on the size and cost of the detention estate.
New clause 29—Nation of Sanctuary—
“(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, jointly publish guidance setting out how measures under this Act may be exercised in a way that secures compliance with—
(a) the Welsh Ministers’ commitment to make Wales a “Nation of Sanctuary”; and
(b) the plan published by Welsh Ministers in January 2019 entitled “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan”.
(2) Before publishing the guidance, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must jointly—
(a) prepare and consult on draft guidance; and
(b) publish a response to the consultation.
(3) No guidance may be published under this section unless a draft of the guidance has been laid before and approved by Senedd Cymru.”
This new clause would require the UK and Welsh Governments to jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act can be exercised in a way which is consistent with the Welsh Government’s commitment of being a Nation of Sanctuary. No guidance can be published unless it has been approved by the Senedd.
New clause 30—Modern slavery decisions in immigration detention—
“(1) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision for the establishment of an expedited process to decide modern slavery cases, where the referral of a potential modern slavery case has been initiated while the potential victim of modern slavery is held in immigration detention pending removal.
(2) In this section “referrals” and “modern slavery decisions” refers to the process for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and trafficking set out in section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
This new clause seeks to require the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track modern slavery decisions made for the first time in immigration detention pending removal.
New clause 32—Refugee family reunion for unaccompanied children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of this section coming into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion for unaccompanied children, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for unaccompanied children who are the family member of a person—
(a) granted refugee status or humanitarian protection;
(b) resettled through Pathways 1 or 3 the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme; or
(c) who is permitted to enter the UK through a safe and legal route specified in regulations made under section 51(1) (see also subsection (6) of that section).
(3) The rules under subsection (1) must—
(a) lay down no practice which would be contrary to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol to that Convention; and
(b) apply equally in relation to persons granted any protection status.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), “protection status” means leave to enter or remain that is granted to a person for the purposes of compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under—
(a) the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol to that Convention; or
(b) Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(5) In this section, “unaccompanied children” includes a person—
(a) under the age of 18, who is—
(i) separated from both parents and other relatives, and
(ii) is not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so;
(6) In this section, “family member” include a person’s—
(a) child, including adopted child;
(b) sibling, including adoptive sibling;
(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(7) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child is to be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This new clause seeks to establish a passage for unaccompanied refugee children to be reunited with a family member who has been granted leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022).
New clause 33—Asylum claims by children—
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act—
(a) a child may claim asylum whether or not the child has leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom; and
(b) a child claiming asylum may not be removed from the United Kingdom until the asylum claim is resolved, whether or not that child is accompanied by an adult with care of the child.”
This new clause would make explicit that a child would be allowed to claim asylum, irrelevant of arrival method, and would be excluded from removal whether the child is unaccompanied or with an adult who has care of the child (such as a parent).
Amendment 62, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.
Amendment 75, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(i) establishes and defines safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally.”
Amendment 184, page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 185, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) So far as it is possible to do so, provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—
(a) the Convention rights,
(b) the Refugee Convention,
(c) the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking,
(d) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(e) the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.”
Amendment 1, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5).
This amendment would remove the subsection which disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Amendment 131, page 2 , line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect to notwithstanding any judgement, interim measure or other decision, of the European Court of Human Rights, or other international court or tribunal; and notwithstanding any international law obligation.”
The intention of this amendment is that the provisions of the Bill should operate notwithstanding any orders of the Strasbourg court or any other international body.
Amendment 181, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(6) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must take such steps as are necessary to refer this Act to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, for the purposes of securing the opinion of the Commission as to whether this Act is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations as a party to the European Convention of Human Rights.”
Amendment 132, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(7) Section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.”
This amendment would disapply other provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in addition to that already disapplied by clause 1(5) of the Bill.
Clause 1 stand part.
Alison Thewliss
The Scottish National party has tabled many amendments to the Bill, as we did yesterday, in a vain attempt to make it more palatable, although the Bill is so egregious as to be unamendable and unsupportable.
The aim of the Bill is reflected in a statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which said that it would
“'amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly; no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances”.
This is an extraordinary and extreme Bill. If it is passed, almost no one will be able to claim asylum in the UK—not children, not trafficked people or those at risk of persecution, and not survivors of torture. The Refugee Council has estimated that the Bill will result in as many as 250,000 people, including 45,000 children, being detained or left destitute in state-provided accommodation.
My colleagues and I have set out a range of exceptions to removal, and we have done so for a very clear reason: to humanise this brutal Bill, and talk about the specific impacts it will have. The Tories like to speak as if the people affected by the Bill are some kind of amorphous blob. They are not; each and every one of them is a real human being. They are people who have wept at my surgeries, and it is despicable that this Government care so little for their welfare, as well as for our international obligations. Names have been changed in a number of the examples and case studies I will use, but they are real people.
Amendment 188 is Hussein’s amendment. It asks for the duty of removal not to apply to people who were under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK. Hussein was flown over from Djibouti aged nine by a woman he had never met. His travel documents were faked and his identity changed. He was made to look after another family’s children while still only a young child himself. It took him until adulthood to speak publicly about his case. Many of us will know him by his more famous name: Sir Mo Farah. Under the Bill, children such as Hussein Abdi Kahin would never have been given the opportunity to rebuild their life. They would have been denied citizenship, detained and removed. Unaccompanied children would not be supported, as they are through the excellent Scottish Guardianship Service run by Aberlour.
Scotland’s Children and Young People’s Commissioner, Bruce Adamson, has said:
“The UK is required to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, under article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC also requires the UK to ensure that children are protected from exploitation and abuse, and afforded support for recovery. This Bill violates those obligations and many others. Its enactment would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of human rights treaties.”
I urge the Government to accept our amendment.
Amendment 189 would exempt Afghan nationals, and nothing said by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in the House earlier has made any difference to how I feel about this issue. There are still many Afghan nationals whom we do not protect. I wonder whether it might be possible to call this Tobias’s amendment, since the person in the case I will mention wishes to remain anonymous. The Independent reported:
“The air force lieutenant, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition forces supervisor as a ‘patriot to his nation’, was forced into hiding and said it was ‘impossible’ to make his way to Britain via a safe route.”
That sparked indignation from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) who would appear to be entirely detached from the reality of what he has voted for in this Bill. He tweeted:
“This is clearly not who we are as a nation. And is not how our migration system should operate. I hope the Government will look at this case specifically and address the wider issue of how an Afghan (who supported UK Armed Forces) can safely apply for asylum in the UK.”
Let me explain this to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all the others: if this Bill passes, which no doubt it will, that is exactly who this nation is. That is exactly how the UK migration system will operate. It is exactly what Conservative Members voted for in supporting this wicked Bill—no exceptions, no backsies, no fingers crossed behind their backs.
People such as that Air Force lieutenant, people who worked for the British Council, Afghan interpreters, educators, the widows and children of men who served with British troops, and the supplier of crockery to British Armed Forces, cannot sit and wait for the Taliban to find them and execute them. If they manage to get out, if they cross continents, step in a dingy and get across the channel, or even if they fly here via Pakistan on a visit visa obtained by pretending they will go back, the UK Government will not hear their case. They will put them on a flight to Rwanda. That is what inadmissibility means in practice, and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East and his colleagues should catch themselves on.
Amendment 190 would exempt people who are refugees under the refugee convention or in need of humanitarian protection, because seeking asylum is not a crime.
Amendment 191 exempts people at risk of persecution because of their sexual orientation. I will call this Yvette’s amendment. I met her at the Rainbow Sisters drop-in last week. She is from Uganda, which has just brought in brutal anti-LGBT laws. Her statement to me last week was this: why would the UK Government send her back to neighbouring Rwanda? She would feel no safer there than in Uganda. Under the Bill, she would be offered no protection and sent back to her certain death.
Amendment 192 exempts people for whom there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are victims of torture. I will call this Kolbassia’s amendment. Kolbassia Haoussou MBE is a survivor of torture and founder of Survivors Speak OUT. He is an incredibly brave man. He is a torture survivor from Chad who was detained on claiming asylum. He has spoken powerfully about the impact that that detention had on him and the uncertainty he faced. He has said that he would have killed himself rather than be returned to the hands of his torturers. The Bill would allow that to happen to Kolbassia.
We tabled amendment 193 to exempt citizens of Ukraine—but wait; I was not sure that the amendment would be in order, because there is a safe and legal route for people from Ukraine. We will not find them coming over in a boat in the channel; they do not need to do that because a safe and legal route exists. That should be the option for anybody in their circumstances.
Amendment 282 exempts people who have HIV/AIDS, because the Bill puts them at risk of not receiving treatment or of being returned to a country where they would face stigma, risk and potentially death.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making some powerful points. I declare an interest as a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV/AIDS. Along with many other nations, the UK is working to end new HIV transmissions by 2030. The UK is also one of the co-founders of the Global Fund, which aims to ensure commitment and funding. Does she agree that, in denying help to people who are diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, the Bill runs contrary to all those aims?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Lady—I am a member of that all-party parliamentary group—is absolutely correct to make that point. We have a responsibility here, but the way in which the Bill is drafted takes no account of people’s health circumstances. It could put people at severe risk if they are sent back or denied treatment.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister shakes his head, but the Home Office has form in denying people who receive medication to manage their condition the treatment they are entitled to in detention, which is where it wishes to place people. The National AIDS Trust highlighted for me a case of a person detained at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre who was denied access to the care that would meet clinical guidelines. He could not get his medication and then it was not given at the appropriate times—with food, as prescribed—because the staff had no experience of that and were not able to support him adequately. If the Government are going to deny people entry and detain them, what is the guidance? What guarantees can the Minister give that those with HIV/AIDS will be able to access the treatment that is keeping them alive?
Amendment 194 exempts people who have family members in the United Kingdom. There are many cases I could attribute to this amendment, but I will call it Ibrahim’s amendment. He is here in the UK, but his wife, son and daughter are in Iran. They have been patiently waiting for over six months for a family reunion visa to be processed. In the meantime, his family are in danger. His daughter was followed home from school and raped by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This is why people do not wait in-country for the Government to process their visas. They do not wait because they are at risk of persecution, rape, danger and torture. That is why people flee. People come here to join family because they are in danger. They are not prepared to wait for safe and legal routes, because in many cases they do not exist. Family reunion, in many cases that I see, is just too slow and not available to everybody who needs it.
Amendment 195 exempts people for whom there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are victims of trafficking or slavery. I will call this Eva’s amendment. Eva is a 28-year-old woman from south-eastern Europe who was referred to the TARA—Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance—service in Glasgow by Police Scotland over the 2016 festive period. Through a relationship she believed was real, she ended up being assaulted, drugged, trapped in sex work and trafficked. She was later placed on a lorry and moved for three days. Eventually, she came to be in Scotland, where she was kept in a flat, isolated from the other women who were also being held. She was raped multiple times by men every day. She was able to escape and find her way to the police. Under the Bill, she would now get no support. Her trafficker will now threaten her: if she goes to the authorities, they will send her to Rwanda. They will keep her under control with the measures the Government are bringing forward in the Bill. In addition, she will not get the expert support that TARA provides in Glasgow. She will be at risk of re-trafficking and further exploitation. This is the reality of the Bill for Eva and many like her: a trafficker’s charter.
Amendment 196 exempts people who meet the definition of an “adult at risk” in paragraph 7 of the 2016 Home Office guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, including in particular people suffering from a condition or who have experienced a traumatic event, such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence, that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm. Let us call this Mohammed’s amendment, after the experience of young people described by Freedom from Torture in its report “Fleeing A Burning House”, which I commend to all Members on the Conservative Benches. Mohammed arrived in the UK via Libya. The report states:
“In Libya, the treatment is so cruel. We have quite a few young people who were really traumatised...Smugglers were basically killing people on the journeys...I think that one of the most traumatic experiences is being raped or seeing the brutality of people.”
The UK Government in this Bill are seeking not to assess the trauma that people arrive with, but to remove them without asking any questions. Putting people into immigration detention re-traumatises people. I visited Napier barracks. There is no privacy and no dignity. Diseases such as covid and scabies run rife. This model dehumanises. I have heard some people say that if it was good enough for troops it is good enough for refugees, but the reality is that these facilities have been abandoned by the Ministry of Defence for good reason: they were inadequate. For many fleeing trauma, it is that militaristic experience they are running from. It is entirely inappropriate for vulnerable people. We know from the Brook House inquiry that the Home Office has a sketchy history of supporting those who meet the definition of adults at risk. It should be reducing immigration detention, not expanding it.
Our list of exemptions is not exhaustive. We accept Labour’s amendment 2, which mentions gender. It is not possible to detail every single possible category of person who should be exempt from the duty to remove, because every person who comes has their own story and their own circumstances. A Bill that treats all of them as a problem to be removed is not fit for purpose. The duty to remove is far too broad and currently has only minimal narrow exemptions. By including people such as victims of trafficking in the duty to remove, the Home Secretary is creating circumstances where traffickers have even more power over the people they are trafficking.
Amendment 197 removes the backdated element of the legislation. Many people who had already started their journeys will not have been aware of the legislation when they began. The legislation will impact people who have already accessed support arrangements here in the UK and who are, to all intents and purposes, in the asylum system. They could not have known the detail of the Bill, which had not been published when they made their journey, and it is particularly egregious that they should be punished for that.
Clause 3, on unaccompanied children regulations, gives power to the Home Secretary to remove unaccompanied children. There is no duty to do so, but it remains at her discretion. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the duty to remove will not apply to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and that “only in limited circumstances” would the power to remove unaccompanied children be used, such as for family reunion. However, there is no detail in the Bill itself of when such a power would be used. Given all I know about the Home Office, I certainly would not trust them as far as I could throw them.
The Children’s Commissioner for England team told me that they recently met a boy who believes that his family were killed in Iran. He was brought to the UK by people smugglers. They stated:
“He had no idea which country he was coming to and no choice in the matter. The Bill sets out that children like this boy who arrive in this country irregularly, whether alone or with their families, will essentially be denied the right to claim asylum in the UK. These are children who are fleeing persecution and then further exploited and abused by people smugglers. Any child arriving in the UK after these experiences must first and foremost be viewed as vulnerable, and in need of love and care. Many of these children will have been trafficked here against their will and must not be held accountable for the crimes of their adult exploiters.”
Clause 4 makes applications under clause 2 inadmissible, so the UK Government will not consider the application at all, no matter how strong an application may be. Separated children will also have any claims deemed inadmissible.
Clause 5 details the Home Secretary’s duty to remove people, which we would amend by including safeguarding clauses so that people cannot be removed to dangerous countries. Research for the Refugee Council has shown that around half the people who made the journey last year came from just five countries with high asylum grant rates. Those people cannot be sent back home. It is not possible to send an Afghan back to Afghanistan or a Syrian back to Syria—they are not included on the safe countries list.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful case against this, frankly, rotten and disgusting Bill. Does she agree that without her amendment 186, clause 2 effectively shuts down pretty much the whole UK asylum system? It captures nearly all asylum applicants—not just those who come by boat but the nearly half of all people who do not arrive that way. Without her amendment, the asylum system in this country will no longer work in any shape or form.
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree. We accept that the Government have made an absolute hash of the asylum system. The asylum backlog is enormous and they should pay attention to it, but tackling the problem by denying anybody else asylum ever does not seem the legitimate way to deal with it.
Clauses 11 and 12 expand the power of detention. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, I find that an incredibly worrying development. It includes people who cannot be removed to their country of origin. The UK Government have previously said that their policy was to decrease the immigration detention estate, but that will now be expanded dramatically. The harm done to people in detention facilities is immeasurable. It exacerbates existing trauma, tears families apart and has crushing impacts on mental and physical health. After the Home Secretary has removed the right to apply for bail, thousands more will be trapped in the system indefinitely.
The UK’s detention system is already an international outlier, with people held indefinitely, out of line with provisions in the criminal law system. I received an email earlier from Elspeth Macdonald, who works for Medical Justice, on worrying and serious reports of a death at Colnbrook immigration removal centre. I would be grateful if the Minister stopped playing with his phone and confirmed whether the reports of the death there are true, because it is incredibly worrying. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there will be an investigation, if the death did happen. There have been deaths in other immigration centres, and we do not want the Government repeating those dangerous errors. I would like to know what appropriate counselling and bereavement support have been made available to people in that detention centre, because that is a frightening experience for them.
It would be useful to know why the Home Office has stopped including the number of deaths in immigration detention from the official immigration statistics. They were published every year from 2017 to 2021, but in the latest statistics for 2022, deaths were not included. Immigration detention is bad for people. It is bad for their mental health. If there is to be further immigration detention—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head, but the evidence is incredibly clear that immigration detention is bad for people.
The Bill also expands detention criteria to include children, which rolls back on hard-won rights that the Glasgow girls and others fought for. Immigration detention is no place for anybody, and certainly not for children. Some of the detainees that the Minister wishes to hold will be pregnant. The British Medical Association has said that under the Illegal Migration Bill, the 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women, introduced by the Government in 2016, will be denied to women who arrive by irregular means. Instead, pregnant women will be locked up indefinitely, while the Government attempt to remove them from the UK. They will not be allowed to apply for immigration bail for the first 28 days that they are detained or for juridical review of the lawfulness of their detention. Many pregnant women are likely to languish in detention for some time, since there are few returns agreements in place by which they could be removed from the UK.
I highlight a particular case study from Women for Refugee Women of a woman called Priya, a trafficking survivor detained in Yarl’s Wood when she was 20 weeks pregnant and held there for almost two months before being released. Priya said:
“I only had one hospital appointment while I was there, for my 20-week scan, and even then I was escorted by officers who took me 40 minutes late for my appointment. I felt frustrated that I wasn’t able to speak to the midwife after my scan because there was no time. The officers just took me straight back to Yarl’s Wood instead. It was not easy. I often felt weak and in pain; I’m anaemic and my blood pressure is very low. On one occasion I passed out in Yarl’s Wood, but they just took me back to my room and left.”
Pregnant women are being locked up in detention centres. What kind of message does that send to the rest of the world? It is inhumane.
Clause 12 amends the Immigration Act 1971, and specifies that determining what is a reasonable period to detain people is for the Secretary of State rather than the courts. Those changes would apply to existing detention powers as well as the new powers provided in clause 11. The amendment removes the considerable latitude given to the Home Secretary to decide what is reasonably necessary to enable examination or removal. Clause 13 amends the immigration bail provisions in schedule 10 to the Immigration Act and restricts the jurisdiction of the courts to review the lawfulness of a decision to detain or to refuse bail.
Clauses 15 to 20 deal with the provision of asylum accommodation for children by the Home Office rather than local authorities, which is entirely unacceptable. The Children’s Commissioner for Scotland has condemned that move in the strongest terms, saying:
“The Home Office’s history of neglect renders it an unfit parent for vulnerable children.”
The Children’s Commissioner for England says:
“The Bill as it stands leaves profound areas of uncertainty–for example, as to what form the accommodation provided to children by the Home Office will take–making proper scrutiny deeply challenging.”
The Home Office has already lost children from the accommodation it has used, so we cannot trust it to look after things at present. Why would we give it more powers in this area? On Second Reading I spoke about treating people as we would like to be treated. We would not treat our own children in that way, so why do the Home Secretary, the Minister and this Government think that we should?
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is giving incredibly powerful testimony. Will she consider supporting new clause 18, which would require that we treat every child on UK soil with the same care and that we safeguard every child equally, whether they are refugees or not?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely support the hon. Lady’s amendment and her work in this area. This Government forget, in their talking about people as though they were an amorphous blob, that we are talking about children, and they have rights under the UNCRC. Scotland has done a lot of work on looked-after children with “the promise” and we should not treat those children any less well than we treat our own.
We would amend the Bill so that clause 23 shall not come into effect without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Parliamentarians in both Scotland and the UK are human rights guarantors, and an important part of our role is to ensure that legislation is compliant with international human rights obligations. The incompatibility of the Bill with the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention, the convention on action against trafficking, and the convention on the rights of the child means that we as lawmakers are obliged to vote against it. The undermining of rights conveyed upon individuals by those agreements must be resisted by all spheres of government. If they are coming after this group now, it will be another group soon enough.
The Bill will negatively impact those seeking international protection in Scotland, as well as on the powers and duties of the Scottish Government, local authorities, and other public bodies under the devolution settlement. I strongly urge—I expect it, to be honest—the Scottish Parliament to withhold legislative consent for the Bill. I expect the UK Government to override that consent.
The SNP amendments to clause 25 would remove provisions that allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that would alter the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24.
Clause 27 amends the Modern Slavery Act 2018 and removes provisions for leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking. As protections will no longer be in place, it will be difficult for third-party agencies to encourage victims of trafficking to come forward, or to work with them should they do so. The Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow has told me that it is increasingly difficult to reassure service users, who are victims of sex trafficking, that they will not be returned or sent to Rwanda for speaking up, and the Bill will mean that TARA cannot reassure them at all.
People who are trafficked were often in very vulnerable situations in their home countries, and those circumstances are exploited by traffickers—that is why they are here. The risk of being returned to those situations means that people will either stay in a dangerous situation or escape and go underground to other dangerous situations. If they are apprehended and returned, the risk of re-trafficking is high if the reasons for their vulnerability are not addressed. Third-party agencies have been clear that the Bill will fetter their ability to reach out to vulnerable groups, to support women, children and victims of torture, trafficking and all kinds of human rights abuses, and that there will be a sharp drop-off in the number of people seeking help, because they will fear doing so.
This Bill will not stop the boats. It will not fix the asylum backlog. It will do nothing other than put lives at risk. It is an anti-refugee Bill. It is a traffickers’ charter. It rips up human rights. Scotland wants no part of it. We want an independent country in which we can stand up for human rights, not diminish them, as this UK Government seek to do.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I will focus on an aspect of this Bill that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) touched on in her references to trafficking and modern slavery, covered in clauses 21 to 28.
The Modern Slavery Act 2018 was world leading. In many ways, it is still world leading. It ensures that people who are in slavery in the UK, be they British citizens or not, are supported when they escape their slavery. Crucially, there is an emphasis on identifying, catching and prosecuting the slave drivers, the traffickers, the perpetrators. My fear with this Illegal Migration Bill is that it will drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.
It has been said several times by Ministers and, indeed, by others in this Chamber that the Modern Slavery Act is being abused, and it has been at least implied that there is a link between the number of people coming on small boats and the Modern Slavery Act. I have not seen evidence to support that claim. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) set out on Second Reading, in 2022 only 6% of people arriving on small boats made a modern slavery claim. I remind everybody that people do not just rock up and claim modern slavery and refer themselves to the national referral mechanism. That has to be done by a first responder, and the majority of first responders are officials employed by the Home Office. From the figures I have seen so far, an attack on the use of the Modern Slavery Act is not justified.
I have not tabled any amendments to this Bill, because I hope it will be possible to work with the Government, so I will set out the problems and suggest some possible solutions. I will not dwell on issues of legality in relation to international law or otherwise, but there is no doubt that serious concerns have been raised, not least in relation to incompatibility.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. She is describing the journey that we need to go on. We should explain to the Government that the whole issue about modern slavery is that when people feel secure, they give evidence to the police, and the police then get after the traffickers. One of the big problems here is that, because 60% of the cases are within the UK, people may suddenly feel that they are about to get kicked out and then they will stop giving evidence.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will refer to that issue myself later on, because the Government have not thought through the implications for the numbers of traffickers and perpetrators caught as a result of this Bill.
I said that I was not going to dwell on the legal issues, but there are genuine questions of incompatibility with article 4 of the European convention on human rights, which is, of course, part of UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, and with aspects of the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, such as articles 13 and 10.
However, the heart of the problem is, I believe, very simple. If someone is trafficked into the UK by illegal means, coming from a country where their life and liberty were not threatened, and is taken into slavery here in the UK, they will not be able to claim modern slavery or have the protection of the Modern Slavery Act. That would cover most of the men, women and children who are trafficked into slavery in the United Kingdom.
Let me let me give an example. A woman from, say, Romania, who is persuaded that there is a great job here for her in the UK, is brought here on false papers and put to work as a prostitute in a brothel. She has come here illegally from a safe country, but she is experiencing sexual exploitation and slavery here in the UK. That is just the sort of case, in addition to British nationals who have been enslaved here, that the Modern Slavery Act was intended to cover. Let us say that she manages to escape and meets some people willing to help. She is taken to the police, but the Government say, “You came here illegally. We’re deporting you to Rwanda.” Alternatively, the traffickers may fear that she is looking to escape, so they take her to one side and explain, “It’s no good doing that, because all they’ll do is send you to Rwanda.” We could have handed the traffickers a gift—another tool in their armoury of exploitation and slavery.
The Government might say that it will be okay if the woman helps with an investigation, because the Bill contains that caveat, but that seriously misunderstands slavery and the impact of the trauma of slavery on victims. It can take some considerable time—weeks and weeks—for somebody to feel confident enough to give evidence against their slave drivers. Under this Bill, by the time they might have been able to get that confidence, they will have been removed from this country. As my right hon. Friend said, it will become harder to catch the traffickers and slave drivers.
I could give another example. Perhaps someone comes here illegally and works in the economy, which, sadly, people are able to do, but then finds themselves vulnerable on the streets and is picked up by slave drivers and taken into slavery. Again, even if they escape, perhaps after years of exploitation, the Government will shut the door on them and send them away under this Bill. I could give other examples, but the hon. Member for Glasgow Central has already given some and I think the point has been made.
There are a number of possible solutions. At the weaker end, the Government could delay the commencement of the Bill’s modern slavery provisions; I note that the official Opposition have suggested doing so until a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is in place and has assessed the impact of the Bill. It would be good to have a commissioner in place and to hear their views on the Bill, but I think that there is more to consider.
First, the Government should not introduce the modern slavery provisions of the Bill until they have assessed the impact of the changes that they made in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the relevant provisions of which came into force at the end of January. They are piling legislation on legislation that they have already passed, and they have no idea whether it is going to work. This approach is therefore not necessary. Secondly, they need to assess the impact of the deal with Albania, because in recent times a significant number of people coming on the small boats have come from Albania. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and I have both pointed out, they need to assess the Bill’s impact on people’s ability and willingness to come forward, to be identified as slaves and to give evidence against the traffickers and the slave drivers.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Lady seen the letter from all the Home Office-funded providers of modern slavery support services that arrived yesterday from their overarching body, the Salvation Army? Literally every single one of the specialist support providers doing the exact work that the right hon. Lady has identified has clearly stated to the Government that the Bill will make it absolutely impossible for them to provide support and help to catch traffickers.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out, because I had not seen that letter, as it happens, but I am not surprised that those who are working directly in the field are making those points to the Government. Sadly, I must say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I fear the modern slavery aspects of the Bill reveal a lack of proper consideration of slavery and what it means, of the experience of victims and survivors, of the need to catch the perpetrators if we are to stop it, and of the difficulties that the Bill will create. I think the Government should assess the Bill’s impact on people’s willingness to give evidence and therefore on our ability to catch the traffickers and slave drivers.
It would be of more benefit to our ability to catch slave drivers and support victims and survivors, however, if we ensured that people in slavery in the UK were excluded from the Bill. That would mean recognising the intention of the Modern Slavery Act: that those who have been in slavery in the UK should be protected by the Act regardless of their immigration status. Some of my colleagues may say, “Doesn’t that mean an awful lot of people will want to stay here?” and worry about the numbers, but actually many people who are brought here into slavery want to go home. They do not want to stay here, but under the Bill I fear it is more likely that they will stay in the UK and stay in slavery.
I could say much more about the Bill and its implications, but in the interests of time I will not. I realise that I have already spoken for longer than I told the Whip I might—a black mark in the book!—but this is in our interests. I want to sit down with the Government and find a way through that does not deeply damage the Modern Slavery Act, abandon victims and make it harder to catch traffickers and slave drivers. I fear that the Bill will do all those things. Let us find a way to ensure that it does not. Let us find a way to maintain our world-leading reputation for supporting those who are the victims of slavery, and for the work that we do to catch the traffickers and perpetrators.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the shadow Minister, who has indicated that he wishes to come in early.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke so powerfully about the issues at the heart of the Bill. I pay tribute to her outstanding work in the area of modern slavery and trafficking.
Here we are again, back for a second day of debate. Across the Committee, I think we all agree that we need to stop the dangerous small boat crossings and destroy the criminal industry at the heart of them, yet each of us knows, though perhaps not all of us admit it, that the Bill is a con and a sham that will only make a bad situation worse. The Government have no returns agreements with the EU to replace the one we were part of before Brexit, nor do they have a working deal with Rwanda. The Home Secretary failed last weekend in her mission to persuade Rwandan officials to state specifically that Rwanda can take thousands rather than hundreds of asylum seekers sent from the UK every year, although at least she got a photo op outside some houses being built for Rwandan citizens.
For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. There is next to nothing in the Bill that is remotely credible, because it is about chasing headlines and government by gimmick when what we need is common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy so that we can really go after the people smugglers upstream and do a deal on returns and on family reunion. What we need is Labour’s five-point plan, which will stop the small boat crossings, clear the Tory asylum backlog and re-establish a firm, fair and well-managed asylum system.
I said yesterday that the Bill was being rushed through Committee at such a speed as to make detailed consideration and debate almost impossible. That applies perhaps even more to today’s sitting.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I note what the shadow Minister says about quiet diplomacy. Actually, it seems to me that the Prime Minister has a very good, cordial relationship with the President of France, but it is quite clear that that alone will not be enough to sort this problem out.
Stephen Kinnock
Well, the Conservative party has spent the past five or six years completely destroying our relationships with our European neighbours and partners, so any improvement on that is very welcome, but I feel that the Prime Minister has an uphill struggle on his hands, given the very low base from which he is starting.
Stephen Kinnock
May I say to the right hon. Lady that that is one of the best interventions I have ever taken? I am more than happy to stand corrected, and I hope that Hansard will correct the record accordingly. That has completely knocked me off my stride, but I was about to say that as a result of the Bill being rushed through, I will have to limit my remarks to the amendments and new clauses tabled on behalf of the Opposition.
Clauses 2 to 5 establish legal duties, which are sure to be unworkable, for the Secretary of State to ensure that every single person who arrives in the UK without prior authorisation is held in detention and then removed from the UK. I use the word “unworkable” advisedly, because the questions that I put to the Minister on Second Reading about where these people will be detained and where they will be removed to are still unanswered.
Likewise, we have no idea how much these proposals, if implemented, are likely to cost. We assume that impact assessments modelling the potential costs have been carried out, but since the Government have failed to publish those assessments, thus denying the House its democratic right to hold a fully informed debate on these matters, we have only the various leaks and briefings to the pro-Tory media to go on. We know from those briefings, along with independent third-party analysis, that the Bill’s price tag is likely to be at least £3 billion a year—possibly more—but the fact that the impact assessments have not been made public suggests a deliberate attempt on the Government’s part to limit the scope for parliamentary scrutiny and obfuscate their own calculations of what the British taxpayer will have to pay. What is the Minister afraid of? Why will he not publish this vital information? Not to do so is simply not good enough, either for Members of this House or for the constituents we represent.
As a result, the Opposition have had to table new clauses that would force the Government to publish within tight timescales the impact assessments that Ministers are clearly sitting on. All that our amendments 286 and 287 and new clause 28 ask is for Ministers to publish detailed assessments on the likely implications of the Bill on cost to the public purse, availability of adequate accommodation and detention capacity, so that we can have a fully informed debate.
Looking beyond detention capacity, we know that the asylum backlog alone means that for some time there will continue to be a need for accommodation to be provided to families who would otherwise face destitution. In recognition of that, new clause 27 would make it a legal requirement that local authorities be consulted as part of the process of accommodation being provided in their area. I know that there are strong feelings about this issue on both sides of the Committee, and on that basis I look forward to cross-party support for new clause 27 as we go through the Division Lobbies this evening.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful for being called as early as this and I will try to be brief. I want to focus specifically on what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has talked about, which is the modern slavery elements of the Bill, and keep to a reasonable amount of time. I want to draw attention to the reality of what we sometimes seem to get mixed up. There is a fundamental difference between people who are trafficked and people who pay traffickers to come here for reasons that are economic or whatever—I do not want to dwell on that; the important thing is that we mix these terms up. There is a clear definition of being trafficked. It involves people who do not want to be here and who are brought here against their will and are then used for various services that they should not be used for. They are slaves.
The Centre for Social Justice brought forward an important paper on this, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, when she was Home Secretary, picked that up and turned it into legislation. We were the first country in the world to bring such legislation through, and although it may now be a little unfashionable to say it, I am very proud of that. I think that what we did is worth celebrating and protecting, and if there are faults in it, we need to correct them.
There is a problem in the Bill, and I know that the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has been very accommodating and talked at length about this, and I thank him for that. I will make a few comments now about the problem and how we could possibly help, because we want to help to rectify this. I understand what the Government are trying to do, but I want to protect some of the modern slavery bits.
My first point relates to commencing the modern slavery clauses only after publishing an assessment of the problems and impacts. I understand that the Opposition have put down various tools to do this in their new clauses. The Government have argued that the Bill is needed to address illegal migration and that the modern slavery clauses are needed to address and prevent abuse of the modern slavery support system by false claims from people seeking to bypass removal. So the modern slavery clauses in the Bill should be targeted at the problem of false claims with a clear assessment made of the level of false claims and the impact on wider modern slavery policy.
The Government should therefore specify in the Bill that the modern slavery clauses—clauses 21 to 28—would be commenced only when a specific threshold of the false modern slavery claims and an increase in those claims is reached, demonstrated by evidence. I think that is fair. Alongside the false claims that would trigger the modern slavery clauses, the Government could commit to publishing evidence on the current level of false modern slavery claims and any increase or decrease in that level. Section 63 of the only recently passed Nationality and Borders Act 2022 would enable the collection of that data on bad faith claims since 30 January 2023.
The modern slavery clauses should not commence until an assessment has been published of the impact of the clauses disapplying modern slavery protections on the identification of victims, including their willingness to come forward, and on the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of slavery and human trafficking offences. This is important because, at the end of it all, we need to know whether there is evidence.
I understand the Government’s fear that this will somehow be used as an alternative vehicle to escape a claim and to avoid being sent back, but we do not see any evidence of that. Only 6% to 7% of those who have come over on the boats have made a modern day slavery claim. That is a tiny number. They will know by now that they can do that, but the reality is that it has not happened. I bring that to the attention of the Government: there is no real evidence of it at the moment. I understand that the Government think we need to protect ourselves against that potential, but we need to see the evidence that that trend is being broken.
Jess Phillips
I agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman is saying and I look forward to working with him to get some of the things that we all want to see. Does he agree, though, that there would be no risk of modern slavery victims—or those making fake modern slavery claims, who the Government seem to be convinced exist—being held up in the system and being allowed to stay here if it did not take an average of 553 days for them to be assessed? If we went back to the 45-day system that used to exist, which might be the case if more had been put into it over the years, there would be no risk that people might use it to stay in the country longer.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Clearly the faster the claims can be assessed, the better it is for everybody, as they can be discovered either to be illegal or to be genuine victims. That is the key thing.
Clear evidence of abuse of the system needs to be published, because it is important that the figures are there to be understood. A very small number are actually claiming it, and the 73% that we were told about on Second Reading in fact refers to those who are detained for removal after arrival. That amounted to 294 people. We need to get the figures in context, then we can understand what the problem is and how we deal with it. If the evidence shows that there is an increase, we will then be able to use parts of the Bill.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the lack of an evidence base for this aspect of the Bill. When the former modern slavery commissioner, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights recently about this issue, she suggested that because no replacement for her had been appointed for over a year, there was a lack of a proper evidence basis for the modern slavery aspects of the Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that she is right about that, and will he use his good offices with the Government to try to ensure that an anti-slavery commissioner is appointed?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am flattered by the idea of my good offices with the Government, and I will take that at face value—thank you very much indeed. I will speak to the Government about that, and I accept that we need to get that replacement made very quickly.
The most important point is that we need to think about exempting any victims exploited in the UK from the disapplication of modern slavery protections. There is a very good reason why that is the case. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead laid out clearly, if we do not do that, those who are affected will simply dismiss any idea of coming forward to give evidence, because they will fear that they will not be accepted and that they will therefore have to go. Many of them will not yet have given evidence to the police. The Bill suggests that the Secretary of State will be able to assess whether they have given evidence to the police, but this a longish process. This accounts for more than 60% of cases, and I really wish that the Government would think carefully about protecting them. I think the police will back us on this, because they want those people to give evidence.
The irony is that the more we help those people and the more they give evidence, the more traffickers we will catch and close down, which will probably result in fewer people coming across the channel on boats. This is all part of a circle of trust, identification and final prosecution, and it is really important. We should amend clause 21 to exempt victims exploited in the UK, and the new threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision requiring objective evidence would prevent spurious claims. The whole point of this is to find a way.
I think we can agree on this. The work the UK has done on modern slavery, the evidence and all the rest of it, is now helping to prosecute the traffickers. If we lose that delicate flower of success, we will find ourselves in a worse position, with many more people being deliberately trafficked because we have become a soft touch on trafficking.
I fully understand why the Government are trying to deter the illegal use of these boats to cross the channel, both for people’s safety and because it puts huge, unnecessary pressure on services here, but I beg my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to accommodate these concerns about modern slavery and to make sure that we do something in the Bill to protect these people in the long run.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I support the amendments on the rights of children, because the Bill punishes children just for being refugees and puts unaccompanied children at risk. There is not enough time to go through every clause, but I will highlight some of the many cruelties.
The measures before the Committee today not only abolish the protections afforded to children but allow unaccompanied children to be routinely detained beyond the 24-hour time limit, and to be detained anywhere the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Detaining children for prolonged periods is utterly unacceptable and poses serious risks to their health, safety and protection.
Clauses 2 to 10 will create a large and permanent population of people, including children with families and unaccompanied children, living in limbo for the rest of their lives. Clause 3 could see a child who arrives alone, fleeing war and persecution, being allowed to integrate into UK society, only to be forcibly removed from the UK as soon as they turn 18.
Clauses 15 to 20 give the Secretary of State a range of astonishingly far-reaching powers, including the power to terminate a child’s looked-after care status and the key legal protections provided by local authorities.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am pleased that the hon. Lady has raised these clauses. Having spoken to the Minister, I know he is keen to ensure that we have clarity on this issue so that when the Home Office provides appropriate accommodation for children, in addition to the other care and support required, we know what that means in practice. We also need to understand the justification and reasons for enabling the Home Secretary to remove a child from local authority care under the vice versa clause, clause 16. At the moment, the explanatory notes do not seem to give any reason why the power is needed.
Apsana Begum
I hope the Minister will address the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point.
There is an array of evidence on the significant harm facing unaccompanied children who are accommodated by the Home Office in hotels. For vulnerable children, this Bill denies refugee and human rights protections and recovery from trafficking, and it prolongs their fears and insecurity by denying them the reassurance that they have found safety.
This Government are not only targeting children. They are removing almost all protections for victims of modern slavery and trafficking who are targeted for removal. As such, I also support the amendments on equalities and human rights, including my new clause 20, because the Bill will be disastrous for disabled and LGBTQ+ children and adults. Women fleeing persecution will be prevented from claiming asylum and will be detained indefinitely, with no exemption for those who are pregnant. Indeed, clause 11 will enable the Home Secretary to enforce the indefinite detention of children and pregnant women in camps such as Manston on a statutory basis. That goes back to what was happening before 2016, when pregnant women were being detained for weeks on end, and in some cases months, with no idea when they would be released. This is utterly disgraceful.
How can it be right that people are to have their human rights ripped away because they are from a different place? Surely human rights are inalienable and universal. Persecuting some of the most vulnerable people fleeing torture, war or oppression during a climate of increasing anti-migrant hostility, with attacks on hotels housing asylum seekers and a growth in far-right activity, is cowardly and dangerous.
The Illegal Migration Bill will be marked for years to come as an extraordinary and chilling attack on our values and way of life. Not in my name. I oppose the Government’s clauses before the Committee today. I reject their purpose and principle in their entirety, because all human beings are born free and equal in dignity, and with rights. In the words of article 2 of the universal declaration of human rights:
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs”.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 181, which appears in my name. I ask the Minister to think about my request over the coming days. I am not asking for a commitment now, and I will not seek to divide the Committee on this question.
The purpose of amendment 181 is to get an opinion from the European Commission for Democracy through Law, otherwise known as the Venice Commission, which is part of the Council of Europe. It consists of lawyers from across wider Europe, including the UK, and its individual members include professors of public and international law and supreme and constitutional court judges. The UK members are Mr Timothy Otty and Mr Murray Hunt, who are both competent lawyers.
The Venice Commission exists, in part, to comment on whether and how legislation, in either draft or final form, is compliant with the UK’s obligations as a party to the European convention on human rights. I have previously used its offices to comment on draft legislation before the Turkish Parliament. It can be quick. I believe the Turkish legislation took about a month to examine. France and Germany have also used the Venice Commission in reference to constitutional law. Incidentally, I am already negotiating hard with German socialists to stop a hostile motion being tabled against the UK.
How much better it would be to go to this organisation, as part of an international and multilateral community, than to be dragged there? I have ensured that any reference to the Venice Commission in my amendment does not hold up the Bill, as the amendment would come into force a month after the Bill’s enactment.
I understand from the Minister that he has consulted other countries on this legislation. How much fuller and more expansive would it be to use this vehicle, with its wider remit, to get an opinion—not a guarantee but an opinion—that would mean no one had to guess the chances of the Bill meeting the requirements of the convention? I cannot see the harm in using this vehicle to do that, and I am very happy to be involved in helping to facilitate a reference to the Venice Commission.
I ask the Minister to consider this proposal further in the days ahead, and I am fully available to discuss it with him.
Florence Eshalomi
I rise to support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I am proud to speak on behalf of my Vauxhall constituents, many of whom have contacted me about this important issue. In my constituency—as in many others, to be fair—we celebrate diversity and welcome people from all over the world who are fleeing war and persecution. We stand in solidarity with them. I am sure that it is the same across the UK. Nobody in my constituency wants to see the continuation of the horrific scenes we are seeing across the channel.
Let us look at some of the statistics: 2022 saw an average of over 100 people a day—five times higher than the figure in 2020—take the perilous journey across the channel. More than 40 people attempted to cross the channel on a single day just before Christmas. The dinghy they were on contained Afghan nationals fleeing the Taliban, and a dozen unaccompanied children. Tragically, the dinghy capsized, resulting in the death of four people. The sad reality is that these people were ruthlessly exploited in their most vulnerable moments by people traffickers. It is right that we in this House come together and do everything in our power to stop the horrific loss of life.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 182 in my name and the names of other hon. and right hon. Members. It makes a simple point, which I hope the Minister can accept.
The Bill focuses on those who arrive in the United Kingdom in the circumstances described in clause 2 of the Bill. Essentially, it is those who arrive in the UK after 7 May this year without leave to do so and who have passed through safe countries on the way. The Bill not only provides for their removal and detention, but imposes lifelong consequences on those who enter in this way, including permanent exclusion from the granting in future of various types of short-term entry into the UK, of indefinite leave to remain and of citizenship—all set out in clauses 29 to 34.
Despite the Bill’s clear and important deterrence objective, its effect is not as simple as, “break the rules and you’re banned for life”. It recognises, rightly in my view, that exceptions have to be made for exceptional cases. In relation to all the future applications that I have mentioned, the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to be able to grant the application, if it is necessary to do so, to comply with the UK’s obligations under the European convention on human rights, or under other international agreements to which the UK is a party.
Given the focus of yesterday’s discussions on removing the ECHR from decision making in other parts of the Bill, I will not dwell on the significance of the ECHR in this part of it. However, I will perhaps say in passing that the Government may want to reflect on how attitudes to ECHR obligations in different parts of the Bill now fit together.
My focus though is on the other ground for allowing, in exceptional cases, the granting of a shorter-term entry clearance to those otherwise excluded from that because they had previously entered the UK under the terms of this Bill. That is when the Secretary of State considers that
“there are compelling circumstances which apply in relation to the person which mean that it is appropriate to do so.”
That is in proposed new section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 introduced through clause 29(3)(3).
In relation to circumstances and applications for some entry clearances, the Government think that it is reasonable, beyond what is necessary to meet their international obligations, to allow some applications in “compelling circumstances” from those who would otherwise be refused. I think that that is very sensible. However, such provision for granting applications in “compelling circumstances” does not exist in relation to applications for citizenship, and it seems to me that that is not sensible.
Incidentally, I must confess that I have noticed too late that the “compelling circumstances” exception is also not in the Bill in relation to applications for indefinite leave to remain, and I should really have tabled an amendment to the same effect regarding them at clause 29(3)(5). I hope the Minister will indulge me and consider that point, too.
My amendment 182 would add the ability for the Secretary of State to grant, exceptionally, an application for citizenship where there are “compelling circumstances”. So, what might such “compelling circumstances” be? As I say, the consequences of an entry into the UK under the terms of the Bill are lifelong. The entry in question may take place at any age, which means that someone brought into the UK on a small boat within the terms of the Bill as a baby—something over which, of course, they would have had no say—would be excluded from entering and remaining in the UK, including as a citizen, at any age thereafter, except in the exceptional circumstances as defined in the Bill.
For example, that person who arrived first as a baby could not, 20 or 30 years later, become a naturalised UK citizen as a result of marriage to a UK national. Such a scenario would, I think, be likely to constitute compelling circumstances and the Secretary of State should have the power to grant citizenship in such cases.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an interesting and worthwhile point, but in practical terms, knowing as we do the ruthless efficiency of the Home Office, how likely does he think it is that it would ever marry up that baby coming to this country without papers with the person seeking to come 20 years later?
Sir Jeremy Wright
The right hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but I think we have to pass legislation in this place that assumes a degree of competence on the part of all Government Departments, and we must do that with straight faces throughout. In any event, it is important that Secretaries of State, as I know he would recognise, have the powers they need to do the right thing in the right circumstances. That is what I am seeking to provide the Secretary of State with here.
Of course it is right to say that such cases would be rare, but I believe the discretion should exist to deal with them when citizenship is applied for, or indeed when indefinite leave to remain is applied for, as it is when shorter-term leave to enter is sought. That is what my amendment will achieve, and I hope the Government will be able to accept the force of it.
Finally, let me say this: if this Bill is to succeed in its objectives, it must have both political and legal credibility. I agree with those who said yesterday that such credibility depends on having clearly available, safe and legal routes for entry to the UK in parallel with the sanctions this Bill imposes on those who do not use them. I look forward to what the Government will bring back on this point on Report, but the Bill’s sanctions will only have credibility if they allow for the fair treatment of exceptional cases. I hope my amendment will improve the Bill in that regard.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). To pick up on his last point, the truth of the matter is that we do not need legislation for safe and legal routes. If I thought for one second that the Government were acting in good faith when they made references to safe and legal routes, I would have a lot more time for the contents of this Bill, but I see no evidence of that good faith. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends may have to reflect on that when they consider their position at later stages of the Bill. Everything in this Bill is all about electioneering and politics; it has nothing to do with the creation of a safe and legal route or a workable system of migration, or indeed with stopping the small boats coming across the channel, as we all want to do.
I particularly enjoyed the contributions from the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I served in government with the right hon. Lady for five years, and I do not think we need to wait for the 30-year release of papers to learn that relations between her and some in my party were not always easy in that time. Having said that, equally we do not need to wait for the 30-year release of papers to know that relations between her and some in her own party, possibly in the Treasury and No. 10, were not always easy in those years.
Of course, relationships in Government are not always easy. However, listening to the right hon. Lady’s speech today and her forensic dissection of those parts of this Bill that impact on the Modern Slavery Act that she brought through, I found myself almost weeping with nostalgia for her time in the Home Office—for the intellectual rigour, the political substance and the determination to do what was right by some of the most vulnerable people living among us.
Mr Carmichael
And the evidence. The lack of evidence and impact assessments runs like a silver thread through the Bill. Have the impact assessments been done? Will they ever be done? If they have been done, will they be published? The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made much of that in his speech, and he was absolutely right to do so. I was tempted to intervene on him to say, “Hold on a second here, man. You shouldn’t be going so fast; you should allow the Minister to get to his feet and tell us the position.” But the Minister did not do so then, and I suspect that he will not do so now, either. There have been times when I have seen Ministers on the Treasury Bench look more uncomfortable than the Minister for Immigration did when listening to the speeches of his right hon. Friends, but I am struggling to think of when that might have been.
The points that I will focus on relate to the question of detention and, in particular, the detention of children. The detention of children is something that I thought we had seen the back of. Although that initiative was driven by my former colleague, Sarah Teather, when she was the Minister with responsibility for young people, I again pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, who did so much to support it in the Home Office. It was an absolute stain on our country that we kept children locked up in immigration removal centres such as Dungavel in Scotland.
I remember visiting Dungavel—it must have been in 2007 or 2008. I also remember, I have to say, successive Home Office and Immigration Ministers in the then Labour Government standing up at the Dispatch Box and saying that I was a bleeding-heart liberal, and that this was just something that we had to live with and nothing could be done. Of course, as we know, there were things that could be done, and they ultimately were done—we did them five years later.
I think it tells us quite a lot about the journey that the Conservative party has been on since those years in 2011 and 2012 that the Government feel it necessary to reintroduce detention for children. We have had 10 years without it now, and what have the bad consequences of that been? I do not see any. Nobody is saying that it has caused a massive increase or spike in any particular problems, but now, for the sake of sheer political positioning, we are going to return to a situation in which children will be placed behind razor wire in places such as Dungavel.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is sitting there shaking his head. If he wants to intervene and tell me I am wrong about this, I am more than happy to take his intervention.
Robert Jenrick
I would be happy to do so, or to answer more fully later when I make my remarks. It is undoubtedly true that we face a serious situation today where the number of unaccompanied minors coming into the country over the channel has increased fourfold since 2019. That places a great strain on our system, and we need ways to ensure that where those people are age-assessed and may ultimately be decided not to be minors, they are held in appropriate detained accommodation. That is one of the issues we are seeking to tackle with this part of the Bill.
Mr Carmichael
I hope that the Minister gets a hold of Hansard tomorrow, reads what he has just said and, as my mother used to say to me, takes a long, hard look at himself, because the idea that that is a justification for locking up children is absolutely disgraceful. For him to try to draw and to invent a causal link where none exists is a consistent line of the way this Government act. It is the same way that they tried to draw a causal link between the Modern Slavery Act and those coming in small boats—it just does not exist.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The current proposal in the Bill is that unaccompanied minors coming here to claim asylum will spend the balance of their childhood here knowing that the day they become 18, the Home Secretary will have an obligation to remove them from the country. Is that not an unconscionable way for any Government to treat children?
Mr Carmichael
“Unconscionable” is one of the more polite and measured terms that we could use about it. I reflect on the fact that when I visited Dungavel in 2007 or 2008, my own children were about six and 10 years old. The staff in Dungavel did a phenomenal job to mitigate the horrors of what they were dealing with, but at the end of the day, we were keeping children behind a razor wire, lockdown institution, and that was downright inappropriate and unacceptable. Nobody will ever persuade me that we should treat any child differently from the way in which we would want to treat our own.
Stella Creasy
The fact that the Minister has just said on the record that it is okay to incarcerate minors—another word being “children”—because we think some of them may not be children reflects why we need to clarify the safeguarding and welfare responsibilities of all public agencies that deal with these children. Everybody is a child until the age of 18 in international law. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he supports new clause 18, to ensure parity in those responsibilities and put beyond doubt the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State and Ministers to look after every child equally well in this country?
Mr Carmichael
It will come as no great surprise to the hon. Lady that I do. That brings me to thinking about what we do here. There is a danger that those of us who follow the evidence and actually care about what will happen if this dreadful piece of legislation is ever implemented disappear down the rabbit hole of trying to improve, amend and mitigate it. We have all tabled dozens—hundreds, some of us—of amendments, but this piece of the Bill has simply to be excised. I will be seeking to divide the House on clause 11 stand apart, because, frankly, there is no mitigation and no polishing of this—I avoid the vulgarity, but everyone knows what I am talking about. There is no way we can polish and improve on something that is so fundamentally removed from the way we would tolerate our own children being treated.
Earlier, we were talking about returning people. I was privileged yesterday to meet a group of Hongkongers, who are among that privileged group of people who came here by a safe and legal route. They still have their problems, of course: their journey did not end when they arrived at Heathrow, and they still have to deal with the trauma of leaving friends, family and others behind in circumstances where they would ordinarily have chosen not to do so. However, I heard a quite remarkable story from one person who did not come through the safe and legal route because her arrival predated that visa scheme being opened up. She told me that her twin sister had been here, but had left the country, and now she was being told that she would need to leave because the Home Office had confused her biometrics with those of her twin sister. That is the sort of ruthless efficiency of which the Home Office is capable. Are we seriously hearing now that we are going to start sending people back to Hong Kong because they happen to have come here before the start of the British national overseas visa scheme?
Dame Rosie, I feel that I have detained the House for long enough—that is probably a matter of consensus among Members—but when it comes to Divisions, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches will do everything that we can to improve the Bill. However, ultimately, there are pieces of it that simply cannot be left to stand.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for coming to a conclusion. I am going to try to call people who did not get called yesterday, as well as those who have tabled amendments, but that will require a certain amount of brevity.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It seems a long-standing conundrum of the immigration debate that most of our constituents express concern about the issue of immigration and its impact on our country, but at the same time tend to be very positive about their own personal experiences of people who have come to this country as migrants. I know that this is the case in the very diverse constituency in north-west London that I represent, but it is true in other parts of the country as well, where people’s experience is that those people who come as immigrants are those who drive the buses, work in the local shops and their children’s schools, and maintain the NHS. We are having this debate at a time when we must acknowledge that one of our biggest demographic challenges remains the fact that we have a declining working-age population, and data from the Office for National Statistics clearly shows that we, alongside much of the rest of the developed world, have a significant challenge in maintaining a workforce sufficient to support our population.
So far, this has been a very constructive debate. In particular, I highlight the comments of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) about the need for a returns agreement. Professor Thom Brooks of Durham University recently did a very detailed study that highlighted that one of the biggest pull factors for those waiting to cross to the United Kingdom was the absence of a returns agreements with France or with the European Union. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for the work he has already done with Government in respect of safe and legal routes. As we heard from the evidence we took at the Joint Committee on Human Rights during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the existence of a safe and legal alternative for those who wish to claim asylum in the UK is one of the defences open to the Government in seeking to treat those who, for example, arrive here in a small boat with a less advantageous process.
However, I will focus my contribution on what I fear are some of the unintended consequences of a Bill whose objective we all support: to end the situation where people put their lives at risk as a consequence of seeking to come to the United Kingdom, facing death or serious injury in the English channel in order to lodge an asylum claim in our country. In particular, I will focus on the way in which the Bill interacts with some of the positive obligations on our public authorities that are created by other legislation: for example, the Children Act 1989 and all its allied legislation, such as the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, and—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has outlined—the provisions contained in the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
My experience of this issue in local government is highlighted in particular by the Hillingdon judgment of 2003, which concerned the Children Act responsibilities of local authorities in respect of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That judgment clarified that the immigration status of a child is irrelevant to the local authority’s obligations to provide support to that child, both under the Children Act when they are under 18, and as they enter adulthood through the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and other legislation that we have passed in this House. When we considered the status of children in care, we were clear that we wanted them to enjoy support until they were at least 25 to ensure that they started out their lives in the most positive way.
Stella Creasy
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long expertise on this issue, but does he recognise the challenge of what we have seen over the past year in the treatment of unaccompanied and accompanied children? It is impossible for local authorities to undertake that safeguarding role and the duties under the Children Act without the direct involvement of the Home Office, which is discharging its duties by commissioning providers, for example, that do not then have clear safeguarding responsibilities. The decision to do that lies with the Home Office, which wrote contracts that did not include safeguarding provision for these children. Unless we are clear that everybody involved in the care of these children from start to finish has a responsibility for their welfare, including the Secretary of State, as new clause 18 does, that gap will remain. In that gap, we have seen some horrific examples of what happens to these children not just with their access to education, but with sexual assault and other serious offences.
David Simmonds
The hon. Member very clearly highlights the fact that this is sometimes to a degree a grey area. I completely understand the position of the Home Office in that, sometimes in the early days of an emergency situation when there is nowhere else for a child to go to have a roof over their head, the accommodation and support provided do not meet the standards that apply. However, ensuring, as our laws require, that we very swiftly move to a situation where they do seems to be a reasonable expectation, and certainly one that would be upheld by the courts.
That point draws attention to the situation of children in transit through the United Kingdom who come to be unaccompanied children because the adults with whom they are travelling are s arrested or found to have no direct responsibility for the child with whom they are travelling. As I know the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will be aware, over the years at Heathrow airport, significant numbers of unaccompanied children have come into the care of a local authority not because they are seeking asylum, but, for example, because they are being trafficked into the sex trade on the continent from another country by way of the United Kingdom. Again, we need to ensure that appropriate care and support are provided for those children and young people, and that they are not simply placed into a process that is focused on immigration control when they being trafficked for nefarious purposes. All these issues are clearly fixable, and I am confident that the Government, once sighted on them, will be able to bring about their resolution.
I would like to finish with a note about the issue of “notwithstanding” clauses, which was much debated yesterday. One of the challenges I find is that in the case of a number of pieces of legislation, such as the Children Act and the Modern Slavery Act, it would be possible for the Government to say that, notwithstanding those provisions, they expect this Home Office process to be followed. Clearly, those are all matters within legislation of the United Kingdom passed by this sovereign Parliament, but it seems to me that there is a risk if we seek to introduce “notwithstanding” clauses to matters that are the subject of international law.
Any of us who has been the recipient of legal advice at any time in our working lives will be aware that, if we were to be offered a contract about which it was that said, “The other party has decided that, notwithstanding what it says in the contract, they don’t have to follow it if they choose not to, after the event”, we would not regard that as in any way sound. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a significant risk that, if we seek to apply “notwithstanding” clauses, we will get ourselves once again into a legal and reputational tangle. That would be more broadly addressed by looking at whether those international conventions are still fit for purpose.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
My hon. Friend will understand that I am a signatory of amendment 131, which is obviously intended to make it very clear that our concern is about rule 39 interim measure orders. Yes, they are not legally binding and they were not part of any conventions signed back in the 1950s, but they are far too often taken into account by UK domestic courts when it comes to the deportation or removal of individuals. He can therefore understand why Members such as me have signed such an amendment to make it very clear to UK courts that these non-legally binding interim measures should not be taken into account.
David Simmonds
I entirely understand what my hon. Friend is seeking to achieve through the introduction of those “notwithstanding” clauses. We heard a great deal about this in the evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Nationality and Borders Bill, on the issue of the margin of appreciation. This is the idea that the courts have perhaps gone further in interpreting the meaning of some conventions than was the case originally. That is often under pressure from parliamentarians, including British parliamentarians, who have argued in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which supervises the operations of the European Court, that some of these laws needed to go further to take account of modern circumstances. The way to address that is not to say that we somehow seek to set aside the obligations that we freely signed up to, but rather to go and have that wider debate with our international partners and, if necessary, say that we wish to see an end to this process to make sure that what we feel we originally intended to achieve is what is achieved by the Bill.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Let me clarify the purpose of the “notwithstanding” provision. It is not to say that we will not comply with international obligations; it is to say that while those negotiations are going on—as my hon. Friend says, that is what happens when a judgement is made by the European Court of Human Rights against a Government—the policy shall proceed. It is to stop the idea that the Court’s judgment would have direct effect and effectively ground the flights, as happened after the interim order was made. Whether it is an interim order or a substantive judgment, it should not immediately have direct effect to stop the policy. Does my hon. Friend accept that that is an appropriate way to proceed?
David Simmonds
That is an extremely good point. For many of us who had some involvement with the ECHR in the past, one of the frustrations at that point was that we recognised that interim orders are not legally binding when they are issued. However, as I understand it, the basis of that interim order was that our own UK courts had not completed their consideration of whether the policy was lawful or not. Therefore, the European Court of Human Rights was saying, “While you have not yet decided whether this is lawful, it is not appropriate to proceed against somebody in a way that would leave them without a remedy.” There is a way of resolving this, but the route to that is through colleagues in the Parliamentary Assembly who have the ability to bring about a significant change.
I will conclude with something that I have called for before, and I will again suggest that the Government look at. It is that we extend the process we currently use in our resettlement schemes, where we have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees administering a process. We tell them how many people that we think we can accommodate as a country, and who we feel best able to support, in consultation with local authorities. Those people then travel to the UK knowing full well how they will be accommodated and supported from the point they leave to when they arrive. The process involves a number of people determined by this Parliament, with their circumstances vetted in advance before they arrive, and permission issued by the Government of the United Kingdom, in control of our borders. If we want to stop the boats and have a new asylum system that gives us control of our borders, we need an asylum visa system that operates in such a way, and that is robust, effective, and ensures that this Parliament, and our Government, are genuinely in control of our borders.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Once again, I urge a certain amount of brevity, as we are not doing brilliantly at the minute and we have to get everybody in.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will be as brief as I can, Dame Rosie. There is much that I loathe in this Bill, but I will concentrate on children’s detention. I speak in support the amendments tabled in my name, as well as new clause 18. I wish to speak on this issue because I am not sure how many Members have experience of having children locked up in their constituency in the way that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has, and it was the same in my constituency. For some years I was the house father of a small-unit children’s home near Heathrow, and it is important that Members fully understand and appreciate the consequences of their actions in supporting the Bill.
I have two detention centres in my constituency—Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. Prior to 2012, children and their families were detained in Harmondsworth in particular. They were locked in; they were imprisoned. The last report from His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons described the setting in Harmondsworth as “bleak” and “prisonlike”, and it is. The experience of the regime is harsh. We have had suicides, and we had another death in Colnbrook last Sunday—that has been referred to. At Harmondsworth the place has been burned down during riots, twice.
I visited when the children were there, like the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I will tell the story of one of my visits to Harmondsworth, where the children were detained. We had a small classroom to deal with children. They were of primary and secondary age, and it was heart-rending. On one occasion when I visited they had a poetry lesson, and they chose to write a poem on a subject of their choice. One of the young girls wrote on the subject of freedom. She wrote:
“Freedom is the sound outside the gate.”
It broke my heart seeing those children locked up in that way, and all the experts I have spoken to—teachers, child psychologists, doctors—reported the impact that that was having in traumatising those children, often scarring them for life. We also demonstrated time and time again, from the various research reports on the children’s experiences, that they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. Their experiences in detention exacerbated and piled on top of what many had already experienced in their country of origin which had forced them and their families to flee, and their experiences on the journey here. In one Children’s Society report at the time, the expression “state-sponsored cruelty” was used.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is so important. There are so few of us now who remember what it was like. When children come here, they are thrown into association with some of the worst people imaginable. Some of the people I saw in Dungavel absolutely needed to be in detention, but the idea of holding them in the same facility as children just took that inhumanity to another level.
John McDonnell
Exactly. In the children’s home where I was a house father, we dealt with some of the children who had been coming from detention. We understood the traumas they had gone through.
Before 2010, just to remind the House, many of us, on a cross-party basis—Conservative, Labour, Liberals and others—campaigned to end child detention because the numbers were increasing year on year. Once a principle is established, it is interesting how the numbers increase. At one point, there was an estimated 1,000 children and families in Yarl’s Wood. The campaigns made it an issue in the run-up to the 2010 general election and many of us signed a commitment to make this country a place of sanctuary. Thank God, what happened was that the people of this country woke up to what we were doing to children and the way children were being treated. Children’s Society reports evidenced the individual experiences of children, as well as the research. We made the sanctuary pledge. Citizens UK, religious bodies, community groups and trade unions came together in one mass campaign.
We had a huge breakthrough after the election. David Cameron was convinced and was supported by, yes, Nick Clegg and—she is no longer in her place—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Over a decade ago, we ended, with unanimity in this House, the routine detention of children. No more children were imprisoned in Harmondsworth in my constituency, or in any other detention centre or prison-like facility. We took that pledge and we enacted it in legislation with cross-party support in 2014. There were some exceptions, obviously. I regretted some of them, but I could understand some reasons why. There were a small number where pre-departure accommodation was provided, but no child was left in a detention centre.
The Bill, whatever the Minister says, removes the protections we, cross-party, arrived at unanimously over a decade ago. My plea to this House is this: please do not take us back to those barbaric days. The lives of children are devastated. The estimate is that 8,000 children face detention under the proposals in the Bill. It will create lasting, almost irrecoverable damage to those children. I just appeal, in all humanity, for the House to reject the proposals.
Jonathan Gullis
I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: amendment 135, which intends to block courts from ordering individuals to be returned to the UK once removed; and amendment 136, which intends to restrict to the use of hotels. I put my name to other amendments that were debated yesterday, which I am proud to support.
First, I want to thank the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for the assurances he gave yesterday evening at the Dispatch Box to meaningful engagement over the Easter recess to find a way forward on the amendments I signed or that are in my name. I look forward to working with him and colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I will therefore not press any of my amendments to a Division this evening.
It is critical that the policy is delivered. In Stoke-on-Trent we understand generosity better than anyone, having 1,279 asylum seekers or illegal economic migrants in our great city. We have been a long-term member of the voluntary asylum dispersal scheme and now have 30% of that population purely in hotels in inappropriate places—directly opposite our railway station, right by levelling-up projects, undermining the work to regenerate and level up the great city of Stoke-on-Trent. It is abhorrent that this has been going on.
For far too long, Stoke-on-Trent has been at the forefront of stepping up and delivering. It was the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme and was voted the kindest city in the United Kingdom only last year. We as a city will do our fair share, but it is inappropriate that we continue to see more than 40,000 people illegally choose to put thousands of pounds in the hands of smuggling gangs when they are already in safe mainland France, to come across on small boats, needlessly risking their own lives and undermining our UK visa system, the rights of our borders and the democracy and sovereignty of this House. It is essential that we do everything we can.
When 73% of people voted to leave the European Union, they wanted to take back control of their laws and their borders. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke were outraged to see only yesterday the Council of Europe’s commissioner for human rights interfering in this place, giving their opinion from Strasbourg and Brussels, demanding that we vote this legislation down. Yet again, foreign dignitaries and foreign judges are trying to interfere with the democratic rights and processes of our great country. It is simply not acceptable. That is why it is so important that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is taken seriously. I would like it be fully supported. Ultimately, we must deliver this important legislation.
Jonathan Gullis
I will happily take an intervention at the end of my speech, as I promise to keep within the 10-minute limit that you have asked of me, Dame Rosie.
Amendment 135 is about the block on returns. If we are to ensure the offshoring of illegal migrants, we cannot see people return to our United Kingdom, because that will undermine the Rwanda policy and other world-leading schemes that I hope we will agree with other safe third countries. I support the Opposition wanting safe and legal routes and returns agreement. Like many, I was outraged that we gave £500 million of UK taxpayers’ money without getting a returns agreement with France directly. I fully endorse that. It is essential that the law makes it clear that if someone tries to make a last-minute claim to an upper tribunal and they are removed, they have no right to return. They may win damages in court, but the right to return must not be granted. If it is, that will undermine everything. The imagery will be shocking, and will be used by smugglers across mainland Europe as an advert for what could happen if people were lucky.
It is essential that we deliver on the important policy of hotels. Rightly, the British public are livid at seeing £6 million a day of their hard-earned British taxpayers’ money going to house people in hotels. It is totally unacceptable in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we have a thriving hospitality and tourism sector, which has been undermined by the use of the hotels. People are losing their jobs. At certain hotels, people have lost the ability to take their children to the swimming baths to learn how to swim. They are unable to go to the gym and other such facilities because, sadly, this abhorrent trade has carried on. In Staffordshire as a whole, nine hotels have been taken up. It is not something that anyone in this House wants, and I hope my amendments get widespread support.
I thank the Minister for his engagement and for the fact that plans will come forward soon for alternative places to move people out of hotels. I was delighted that my petition to end Serco’s abuse of Stoke-on-Trent, which I presented on the Floor of the House, gathered more than 2,000 signatures. We have seen continued movement from the Minister, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to find suitable accommodation in the short term until we implement, very soon I hope, the policy to get people deported to safe third countries such as Rwanda.
Stella Creasy
I will let the hon. Gentleman gather his breath. He made a strong case that he was concerned about the work of the European Court of Human Rights making judgments about overbearing Governments and trying to stand up for citizens. Does he, therefore, deplore the recent judgment by the European Court of Human rights—another rule 39 interim measure—in the cases of Pinner v. Russia and Ukraine and Aslin v. Russia and Ukraine? They concerned British nationals who were members of the armed forces in Ukraine, who had surrendered to Russian forces and been sentenced to death. The European Court of Human Rights got stuck in to stand up for British citizens. But by his logic, I assume that he would oppose that because he does not like such bodies standing up for citizens being oppressed by Governments.
Jonathan Gullis
Rule 39 interim measures were not part of the European convention on human rights when we signed it in 1950. While we have obligations under the convention, they should never trump the sovereignty of what happens in this Parliament. We are democratically elected parliamentarians who speak on behalf of our constituents—well, we do on the Government Benches—and that is important to understanding why we deliver such policies.
The hon. Lady talks about the European court of human rights, but let us not forget that 47% of ECHR judgments have not been complied with over the past 10 years. In Spain and Germany, it is 61% and 37% respectively. The UK is, I believe, at 18%, so we are better at upholding our ECHR obligations than most mainland European countries, of which I know the hon. Lady is a huge fan. She would love to see us return to the European Union, which she so avidly campaigned for and continues to make the case for privately, I am sure, within the parliamentary Labour party. I commend her bravery in taking that stance but, of course, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke simply said, “No. Go away. Bye-bye, Labour”—hopefully for decades to come—after 70 years of failure, neglect and under-investment in our great area.
Returning to the debate, I thank Professor Richard Ekins of the University of Oxford and Sir Stephen Laws KC for their work with the Policy Exchange and for helping me and other colleagues with the changes we proposed today. When people are losing their jobs at hotels and the hospitality and tourism sectors of our towns and cities are being damaged, that undermines public confidence in our ability to deliver this policy. There are disused Army bases, and I have no issue with the use of portakabins or tents. They are perfectly acceptable short-term accommodation, so long as we deliver on the policy of ensuring that people are removed after 28 days to a safe third country. Rwanda is perfectly safe and has so far welcomed the fact that the UK Government have been so successful at explaining in UK domestic courts that our world-leading policy is something to be celebrated.
Despite the shadow Minister suggesting that this Government are worried about compliance, the fact that they are winning court battles on other legislation that was deemed to be on the line shows that they are confident that they will be on that side again. He talked about a Labour plan, but I am still searching for something other than processing people quicker, which would mean we would still accept seven out of 10 people coming here—70% of 45,000 would be completely unacceptable to the people of the United Kingdom—and would lead to smugglers advertising a 70% success rate. That is why I am unable to support many of Labour’s amendments today.
The only exception that intrigued me was the new clause—I forget the number—that proposed engagement with local authorities. However, the assurances that the Minister gave yesterday to one of my hon. Friends who tabled a similar amendment gave me confidence, and I will be unable to join Labour in the Lobby today. I am delighted that Councillor Abi Brown was brave enough to force this Government to remove the voluntary opt-in and ensure that all local authorities are part of the asylum dispersal scheme after threatening to legally withdraw from the scheme.
Thank you for the time, Dame Rosie, and apologies for going one minute over.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I would have liked to say it was a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), but unfortunately I cannot.
I rise to speak to new clause 29, which stands in my name and in the name of right hon. and hon. Friends. I share the wish of hon. Members across the Committee to see an end to small boats crossing the channel, but the Bill is an affront to the values of my party and of so many people in Wales and across the UK. It is at odds with the objectives and the spirit of the international human rights treaties to which the UK is a signatory. It is contrary to the Welsh Government’s wish for Wales to be a nation of sanctuary. It is contrary to the democratically expressed will of the people of Wales, and if we had our own way it would not apply in our country.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Several calumnies have found form in the contributions of Opposition Members in the course of our consideration of the Bill so far. Principal among them is that there is no factual basis that has provoked this legislation. That is simply not so.
Since 2018, some 85,000 people have entered Britain illegally, 45,000 of them in 2022 alone. Roughly 75%—in fact, I think it is 74%—are men under 40. Nearly nine in 10 of those arriving are male; 18% are Albanian—and, by the way, Albanians make up 10% of the foreign prisoner population, with some 2,000 of them—and 100% have travelled through safe countries in which they could have claimed asylum in order to get here. Accommodating these people is costing the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. That is why we need urgent action to deal with the channel crossings but also, more fundamentally still, to reform our asylum system to make it fit for purpose and to cut immigration—and, I say to the Minister, not just illegal immigration, because we will need to turn to legal immigration too during the course of this Parliament.
Sir John Hayes
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have great respect for him, but I promised you that I would be brief, Dame Rosie, and I know that if I take interventions that will not be true, and I will break my promise. You would never forgive me for that and, worse still, you would not call me again.
I shall speak to some of the amendments that stand in my name, which I hope will help the Government in that endeavour. My amendments, along with those tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stone (Sir William Cash), among others, are designed to improve the Bill rather than to frustrate the Government’s efforts. Indeed, they are framed in order to make the Bill work—for the Bill must work.
The British people are at the end of their tether, tired of a liberal establishment blinded by its own prejudices which seems oblivious to the needs of working-class Britons but ever more indulgent towards economic migrants and anyone else who comes from abroad, for that matter. The British people demand and deserve something better than that. They deserve a Government who take their concerns seriously.
Just in case there is any doubt about those concerns, I refer Members to the work of Professor Matthew Goodwin, professor of politics at the University of Kent, who has studied these matters. He has revealed the opinions of an immense number of voters in so-called red wall constituencies. You will remember, Dame Rosie, that those are the seats that Labour hopes to win back, but it will not, because they are in the hands of very able Conservative Members of Parliament, many of whom take a view of the Bill that is similar to mine, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. Interestingly, 59% of people in those constituencies think that we
“should withdraw the right of asylum-seekers and illegal migrants who cross the Channel illegally in small boats to appeal against their deportation.”
That number
“jumps to more than three-quarters”
of 2019 Conservative voters and 39% of Labour voters. A large majority, six in 10, support
“stopping migrants in small boats from illegally crossing the Channel using any means necessary”.
Benjamin Disraeli said that
“justice is truth in action.”
My amendment 283 is designed to restore justice to our asylum system by affirming the truth. Little epitomises the anger felt by my constituents and many others about the unfairness of the system more than those economic migrants with no legal right to be here who arrive in Dover claiming to be younger than they are in order to game our asylum rules. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) pointed out when she was Home Secretary, in two thirds of age dispute cases, it has been found that an individual claiming to be a child is over—sometimes considerably over—the age of 18. This is a widespread problem.
Amendment 283 would introduce a scientific age assessment to ensure that those under 18 who need to seek shelter here can do so, as well as to find out those over 18 who lie to cheat our rules. The amendment is in keeping with the practices used in Europe by countries that verify the ages of those crossing their borders. The scientific age assessments used in many European countries for these purposes include dental and wrist X-rays in France, Finland and Norway, and CT or MRI scans in Sweden, Denmark and elsewhere.
I would be amazed if anyone who believed in the integrity of our asylum system opposed such an amendment, and I hope the Minister will confirm when he sums up that the Government intend to adopt it. Without such a change, we cannot properly break the business model of the people smugglers. These vile traffickers will simply tell the people whose lives they are risking to lie about their age to prevent them from being removed.
My amendments 129 and 130 would strengthen the Bill by ensuring that those who have no right to be here are swiftly removed. At present, the language in the Bill promises to “deport”. However, deportation is a distinct legal process from removal. Deportation is reserved for those who are a “risk to the public good”—typically foreign national offenders. By contrast, removal is a legal term for a process by which certain people may be removed from the UK, usually because they have breached immigration rules by remaining here illegally, but who do not necessarily pose a public risk or danger by so doing. Again, I hope that the Minister will enter into a discussion with me about how we can improve the Bill in that way and make it more effective.
I know, too, that the Minister will look at the amendments that aim to toughen the Bill further in terms of its language. Amendment 135, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, is vital as it will block courts from ordering that individuals who have been removed be return to the UK. If those removed to Rwanda were allowed to return to the UK following legal challenges, the deterrent gained from successfully sending them there would be diluted or lost altogether, so it is essential that those who want to join the small boats and the smugglers who organise their dangerous journeys know that the deterrent is credible.
Amendment 132 would ensure that other provisions of the Human Rights Act were disapplied. Right hon. and hon. Members know my view on the Human Rights Act: I would repeal it. And they know my view on the convention: I would leave it. But that is not what we are debating today, and it is not what these amendments seek to do. They simply aim to ensure that the Government’s policy, which has found form in this Bill which I hope is soon to be an Act, is not once again mired in appeals to foreign potentates and powers who will frustrate the will of the Government, this House and, more fundamentally, the British people.
I will not comment on amendments 139 and 140 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), except to say that they are arguably well-intentioned, but not necessarily so. A report last year, as my hon. Friend must know, showed that nearly two thirds of asylum seekers suspected of lying when they were unaccompanied children were found to be over 18. Of course care and sentiment matter, but we must exercise sense to avoid being naive about this subject.
For the sake of brevity, Dame Rosie, I will not say much more, except to conclude in this way: the British people want to deal with the boats. They want to restore order to our borders. They believe in the integrity of a system that determines whether someone is a genuine seeker of asylum in fear of persecution and in profound need or an economic migrant gaming the system in respect of their age. That is what the British people want, and that is what this Bill will do. By the way, just a quick word about judicial activism: it is a well-established concept and I would advise the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) to read about it in more detail, as he does not seem to have heard of it.
I say to the Minister that we must avoid listening to the bleats and cries of a bourgeois liberal establishment who will go out of their way to stop the Government doing what is just and right. I look forward to further engagement with him and, assuming that he says something sufficiently generous—indeed, slightly more than that; I would like to feel flattery—I will not press the amendments that stand in my name.
Stella Creasy
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), a knight of the realm, lecturing us all on being in touch with the people and on class warfare. What a dystopian vision he paints of this country. I will confine my remarks to the three amendments in my name, because he does not speak for the majority in this country with his callous disregard for people seeking sanctuary, and in his callous disregard for the evidence and facts.
Amendment 293 reflects the challenge set by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who complains about people with visas. He must be disappointed that the Illegal Migration Bill does nothing about people who overstay their visa, which is clearly illegal. If this Bill were actually about things that are illegal in our asylum system, it would tackle visa overstayers. The Bill says nothing about people traffickers, and it contains no further sanctions and makes no further efforts to catch organised crime gangs. I now realise why it does not, having heard how the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North objects to the European Court of Human Rights standing up for British citizens who face the death penalty—he could not even say that stopping people being sent to their death for standing up to Putin is a good thing.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, as long as he will clarify on the record that his comments about me were mistaken. I am sure that he would not wish to malign somebody’s good reputation, even if he disagreed with them.
Jonathan Gullis
I do not remember seeing the hon. Lady on the streets of the west midlands, campaigning to vote leave in the 2016 referendum, so I feel confident that my comments about her being a pro-European are perfectly acceptable.
When the Minister came to the Dispatch Box with regard to the 200 missing children, he said that 95% of them were 16 to 17 years old—smugglers encourage people who they think can get away with looking that age—and 88% were Albanians. Why would any parent spend £4,500 on sending their child here illegally on a small rubber boat, when they could go on an aeroplane for £30? Also, it is important to understand that the Minister made clear that there was no evidence that any of those 200 had been kidnapped—they left of their own accord.
Stella Creasy
When the Immigration Minister was dismissing concerns about locking children up, suggesting that they probably were not children because of concerns about age verification, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—I am sorry that he is no longer in his place—used a gentle phrase that his mother might say: “Have a long look in the mirror.” Well, I suggest that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North gives his head a wobble for what he has just said about children who have gone missing; 16 and 17-year-olds are children—[Interruption.] He is chuntering from a sedentary position. If those children turn up, I hope to goodness that they all turn up safe and well, because if they do not, what the hon. Member has just said will come back to haunt him—[Interruption.] He can keep shouting all he likes, but the vast majority of the British public are horrified by the idea that 200-plus children have gone missing from hotels that the Home Office was supposed to be overseeing.
There is due to be a public inquiry into the Manston centre. The Government have accepted that because of possible article 3 breaches—basically, concerns about how we were treating pregnant women and young children going into Manston—but that investigation has not yet happened and cannot yet inform this legislation. Clause 11 extends detention for families and pregnant women, and clause 14 removes the duty to consult the independent family returns panel about the treatment of children. Children are under the age of 18; we accept that in law.
We have provisions in law—on, for example, the use of bed and breakfasts—that have not been mirrored to date in our treatment of children who have come in through this system. I can hear why in the callous disregard of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, but I go back to this simple principle: whatever we think of the parents of these children, we should not be punishing children by agreeing in law that they have second-class citizenship. That is what this legislation will do to refugee children.
Stella Creasy
The Minister is shaking his head, but there is a very simple answer, because all new clause 18 does is commit to parity. It says that we should treat every single child on UK soil with the same concerns. We could safeguard every single child.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but then I want to finish because I promised Dame Rosie that I would be brief.
Alexander Stafford
Everyone wants children to be safe: nobody wants a child to be living in a hotel; and, fundamentally, nobody wants a child to make a very dangerous crossing in a small boat. The safest place for a child is not to make that crossing. There are safe and legal routes, which we should try to focus on, rather than encouraging people smugglers to take children on the channel. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the worst thing for a child?
Stella Creasy
Nobody is encouraging the smugglers. Given the heat that has been generated in this Chamber, it is important to recognise that nobody across the House supports the smugglers. Equally, there are no safe and legal routes. The example of Iran proves that very clearly. The fact that the Minister does not seem to understand that is troubling. If a child does come here, what happens to them? New clause 18 would provide parity of treatment for all children resident in the United Kingdom—for example in the rules around bed and breakfasts and putting a child in with a single adult. If the hon. Gentleman were to find that happening in his constituency, he would probably, rightly, challenge his local authority about it. Why are we saying that, because a child has refugees as parents, it does not matter how they are treated? That is what this legislation is saying. All new clause 18 is looking for is parity. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North may disregard those children, but I wager that there are other Members in this Chamber who recognise that when it comes to children, we have responsibilities and obligations.
I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will say on the record that, yes, absolutely, the same standards of safeguarding will apply. The Home Office failed to put safeguarding in the contracts. I had to use a freedom of information request to get the contract from his Department to be able to check it. I did check it, because the Minister does not do his own homework, so somebody else has to. The contract very clearly does not mention it. [Interruption.] It is not a fantasy. What is a fantasy are the figures that the Home Secretary and the Minister just came up with on the safe and legal routes from Iran. Perhaps the Minister might want to reflect on that and on what the UK Statistics Authority said about the Home Office’s relationship with the truth when it comes to the numbers and to asylum.
I wish to finish simply by urging the Government to stay on the record. If I am wrong, they should correct me. They could say that every single child in this country will be covered by safeguarding, and that the Home Office itself will take a direct safeguarding duty for these children. It would not be that difficult.
Stella Creasy
I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has made his feelings clear, even if he has taken the Shelley’s grandmother approach to communicating any sense about them. What matters now is that this Government speak up for every single child, because, if they do not, I promise that there are people in this House who will continue to do it no matter how much barracking we get, because every child matters.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dame Rosie. I would like to echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said earlier about how strongly people feel about this issue. He provided the statistics to back that up. Some 35% of all policy inquiries to my office last week related to this issue of illegal migration and small boats. People often say to me, “You are in the middle of the country in Mansfield, so why do people care?” It is a simple matter of fairness. It is a massive Government commitment. One of the Prime Minister’s key pledges to the people of this country was to tackle the issue of small boats.
The people of Mansfield are generous, but they believe in the rules and they believe in law and order. They are happy to help those people who follow the rules, but when they are struggling and when they see people facing genuine safeguarding and personal safety issues, they feel the unfairness when they see others coming from the safe country of France and jumping the queue. When they are sat on housing waiting lists and unable to get a home, but someone who has no legal right to be here is able to get accommodation, they feel that unfairness. It is very easy for us in this Chamber, none of whom, I would imagine, rely heavily on our public services, to say that there is no negative impact to all of this. In reality, though, if a person is on that housing waiting list and unable to get a permanent home for themselves or their family, if they are struggling to access primary care, if they are told that they cannot get the help that they need, if they are sacked from their job at a hotel because it has become a migrant accommodation, or if they are seeing public funds intended to support people in this country being diverted to support people who have no legal right to be here, then, of course, they feel the unfairness. To suggest that that is not a problem is to deny the experience of many of my constituents, and of many people around the country, who feel that very strongly.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) was talking about safeguarding. Does my hon. Friend, who is a local authority leader, agree that we all have a duty to safeguard the young people of our country, as opposed to those who do not have any documentation to prove the age that they claimed when they arrived on the shores of this United Kingdom illegally? Therefore, until age verification can be guaranteed, we have to make sure that those alleged children—and alleged until we can prove it—are not mixing with genuine, birth certificate-holding UK residents who we know are under the age of 18.
Ben Bradley
My hon. Friend is right: I do have that role, and it does present significant safeguarding risks and resource challenges. The hon. Member for Walthamstow said earlier that everyone should have a right to education, but I do not know where she thinks those school places just emerged from. We cannot plan for hundreds of school places when 40,000 people arrive in one year. I have British children in my county unable to access a school place near their home because of the sheer volume of genuine asylum seekers who have come through genuine routes who are accessing those places instead.
David Simmonds
The Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, which funds a researcher in my office, has done a lot of work on this issue. Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, where a young person is of statutory school age, it is an absolute legal obligation on a local authority to ensure that they have that education and, if it fails to do so, that child is eligible for compensation that is paid out in a dedicated school grant, thus affecting the budgets of all schools in that area? Does he agree that it is vital that in this Bill we clarify exactly what the position of child asylum seekers is so that we know whether they are within that legislation or whether they somehow fall outside it?
Ben Bradley
I fully take on my hon. Friend’s earlier point about who holds the responsibility for applying those duties and how they mix together. That is a complex issue and one that I cannot answer today, but he is right that we need to ensure that we safeguard children and offer them all the support we can, recognising that we have a duty to British citizens and British children to supply school places. It cannot be right, as I said to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, to suggest that all of a sudden schools, school places and opportunities will just appear, because they will not.
Ben Bradley
I have given way twice already and I am very conscious of time, but I will give way one last time.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point about the important role that local authorities play. Will he therefore be supporting our new clause 27 when we put it to the vote this evening, stating that it should be a legal requirement for the Home Office to consult with local authorities before making any arrangements on accommodation for asylum seekers?
Ben Bradley
That is a challenge that I raised in the House myself last year, but I have since had many conversations with the Department and feel reassured that that communication has been far better recently. I feel more confident now that that relationship is better, but it certainly was a challenge at the start, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for having dealt with that.
I will make some progress, because I know you are keen to crack on, Dame Rosie. I want to touch on a couple of the amendments and demonstrate some of the challenges in the system. There are several amendments that would effectively prevent deportation or removal at all costs, blocking the entire premise of our being able to control our borders. In preventing us from controlling our borders or removing people with no right to be here, the amendments would dissolve our national self-determination and national identity and degrade our ability to decide for ourselves, taking away some of the significant powers that we should have and hold in this country. As Ronald Reagan said, if you cannot control your borders, you are not a nation state.
For example, under amendment 138 someone could not be removed unless there was a safe and legal route, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned. To me, that says that, if there is not a safe and legal route, people have carte blanche to arrive here through whatever means they like. There cannot be a safe and legal route for everybody around the world who could be eligible to come here. There are 100 million displaced people around the world; we have to draw a line somewhere to say what is reasonable for us as a country to be able to resource. Local authorities are tasked with looking after many of the people who come, with limited resources and limited capacity. To be fair both to asylum seekers in genuine need and to UK citizens who rely on public services, we must draw a line. It cannot possibly be right to implement an amendment that would prevent us from removing anyone.
Under amendment 121, a person cannot be removed until we have exhausted a million appeals, through every court in the land, forever and ever. That will actively encourage the kinds of scenes that we have seen in recent years, with late appeals being lodged and people being dragged off flights. We will not be able to enact any of the Bill if hon. Members try to implement such amendments, which defeat its entire object. Perhaps that is what Opposition Members are trying to achieve in tabling them.
We need to stop the exploitation of children, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is right to say that age verification is important in that. Important as it is to ensure that we implement a system that is tough on the rules for adults, if we want to implement a system that also has a duty to safeguard children and young people, we must be able effectively to decide who children are and to show that the system is not being exploited in that way.
If, under the Bill, all children have the same rights as British children and will not be removed at 18 years old, we are effectively saying, “You will be able to come and live here as a British citizen with a right to stay for ever.” Inevitably, more and more children will arrive on small boats. We would be actively encouraging people traffickers to exploit more vulnerable, unaccompanied children, put them on boats and push them off into the sea—a horrendous outcome.
My constituents voted by 71%—one of the highest proportions in the country—to leave the EU. They voted for self-determination; they voted to remove the control and overriding decision making of European institutions. Amendments 131 and 132 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) would ensure that the rules are decided, implemented and applied here in the UK, regardless of the views of those in Strasbourg on removal flights or of provisions in the ECHR that might overreach or be open to exploitation. While we get to a place where we can work out a functioning asylum system, most of my constituents will expect us at the very least to be able to make our own rules and decisions, and determine compliance with those rules, here in the United Kingdom. That played a huge part in people’s choosing to leave the European institutions.
My Mansfield constituents absolutely expect to see a dramatic fall in the number of people crossing the channel illegally, people moved out of hotels and into secure accommodation, and removal flights taking people with no legal right to be in this country somewhere else. I again ask the Minister and the Home Secretary to do everything in their power to ensure that we keep that promise to the British people.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
In following the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I want to point out the dangers of framing this as a “them vs. us” competition for scarce resources, and of the notion that there are 100 million people in the world who all wish to come to the UK. Of course, we should invest in resources for everyone across the UK, and have some degree of perspective, because although there may be 100 million refugees or internally displaced people in the world, only a small fraction of them are seeking to come to the UK. Even if we expand the range of safe and legal routes, most of them will want to stay close to their original homes, with the intention of returning there some day.
I will offer support to other Opposition amendments, but in focusing on my amendment 70, I am somewhat self-conscious and humbled, because it is a very specific, niche issue in the overall context of a Bill that lacks compassion and humanity towards people fleeing war and persecution, breaches international law in the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, and denies the lack of viable safe and legal routes to the UK. It is none the less important that I place these concerns on the record.
Once again, Home Office legislation fails to take into account the realities of the common travel area and particularly movements on the island of Ireland. Although there is an open border with no routine immigration checks, UK immigration law continues to apply, and people who cross into the UK, particularly on the island of Ireland, remain at risk of immigration enforcement and legal jeopardy if they are found to be in breach of any immigration rules. Under clause 2, someone who enters the UK via Northern Ireland risks potential detention, deportation to a third country or their home country, and even a ban on ever returning. I welcome the Home Office’s recent guidance on electronic travel authorisation, in so far as it gives an exemption for third-country nationals living in the Republic of Ireland who do not require a visa to enter the UK, to come to the UK without the need for an ETA. That is sensible and pragmatic, but it does not go far enough. I wish to highlight two categories of people in connection to the Bill, as clause 2 significantly raises the jeopardy for people who are not covered by that exemption.
The first is those residents of Ireland who currently do require a visa to enter the UK, which obviously includes Northern Ireland. The visa itself is not the issue in this particular debate, but the change in their legal jeopardy very much is. Let me give a couple of examples. A woman from Kenya who is living legally in County Donegal crosses the border—a simple bridge across the border—from Lifford to Strabane to do the weekly shopping. Somehow she ends up interacting with the state authorities and therefore comes to the attention of immigration control. She could end up in a situation where she is deported not just back to her home in Ireland but all the way back to Kenya. A Nigerian man is simply travelling between two points in the Republic of Ireland, Clones and Cavan town, on a road that famously crosses the border in Northern Ireland in County Fermanagh about six times. He has no intention of doing any business in the UK but unfortunately has a traffic accident and comes to the attention of the state. Under clause 2 of the Bill, he, too, could be deported not just back to his home in Ireland but all the way back to Nigeria.
Secondly, let us look at the issue in terms of tourism. At present, Northern Ireland is marketed internationally as part of a single entity: the island of Ireland. That is an outworking of the Good Friday agreement. Furthermore, most international visitors to Northern Ireland arrive in the Republic of Ireland through Dublin airport and then travel northwards. It is currently intended that those individuals would require an ETA to access the United Kingdom. I want to have a separate discussion with the Home Office about the impact of that requirement on the tourist sector, but today I want to focus on the immigration aspect.
There are safeguards to ensure that anyone entering the UK via a seaport or airport has the requisite papers, but that will not be the case with what is an open land border in Ireland, so there is the potential for many thousands of tourists to innocently and unwittingly come to Northern Ireland without an electronic travel authorisation and therefore be placed in legal jeopardy, even if they do not have the intention to stay in the UK, because they are simply tourists. Under the Bill, they, too, are at risk of detention, deportation and a ban on ever coming back to the UK. Is that seriously the message we want to send to the rest of the world in terms of UK tourism?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The Government should note that this argument finds unanimity across the political parties of Northern Ireland, and that, in itself, should speak volumes to the Government.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for that intervention. He is right: we are taking a pragmatic approach to this across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland, because we are very sensitive to the importance of tourism to our economy. There are particular concerns about the need for an ETA in terms of tourist movements, and today we are highlighting the issue of enhanced legal jeopardy for someone who travels without that documentation and the potential risks of that.
I want to briefly make a few other points in relation to the implications for Northern Ireland. The Bill has the potential to run contrary to the requirements of article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol, now renamed the Windsor framework, alongside the wider issue of its adherence to the European convention on human rights. I am not sure that the Government have done proper due diligence in that regard. This relates to the non-diminution of rights, and of course asylum seekers are as much part of the community in Northern Ireland as anyone else.
Finally, I place on record my concern that the Bill potentially allows the Secretary of State to make modern slavery regulations that apply to the devolved regions and nations, and may encroach upon devolved matters. Those powers will be struck without the consent of the devolved authorities, including in Northern Ireland, where we do not currently have a functioning Executive and Assembly.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 148, 285, 288 and 292 and new clauses 18, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 30, because my constituents and I are deeply concerned about so many aspects of the Bill. Specifically on clauses 2 and 4, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has stated that the Bill would
“deny protection to many asylum-seekers in need of safety and protection, and even deny them the opportunity to put forward their case.”
Over the years, I have worked with refugees and asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors, children and families, and the stories I have heard about them travelling to the UK involve brutal and gruesome treatment at the hands of people smugglers. They are always left deeply traumatised. I have heard stories of male children being raped. I have heard the story of a young person travelling with his brother, who was separated from him along the journey; he never saw him again, and was left worried and concerned that maybe he never even survived that journey. I have heard the story of a husband who was handed his child and saw his wife being repeatedly gang-raped—these are terrifying incidents. I have heard stories of guns being placed to children’s and adults’ heads.
These people are terrified, and have endured unimaginable conditions on their journey to the UK, yet when we hear about refugees and asylum seekers from the Government and from Members on the Government Benches, their experiences of crossing the channel to flee persecution are rarely ever mentioned. I find that utterly shameful. This Government have demonised these people, including children; they forget that these people are human, just like all of us across this Chamber. Refugees who come by boat or in lorries do so because of the lack of safe routes to the UK. They are completely vulnerable and at the mercy of the people smugglers. It is those people smugglers and criminal gangs that the Government should be focusing all their efforts on, in order to stop these illegal and criminal acts. That is why I am backing new clause 22, which would enshrine in law a new National Crime Agency unit to crack down on people smugglers and gangs.
As the MP for Lewisham East, I have talked a lot in this Chamber about my pride and joy in the fact that Lewisham Council was the first in the country to become a borough of sanctuary. Local authorities are heavily involved in the housing of asylum seekers, which is why I urge colleagues to vote for new clause 27, which would force the Home Secretary to consult local authorities when opening up asylum accommodation and hotels in their area. We have a hostel and asylum accommodation in my constituency, and when I have been there to speak to some of my constituents, I am appalled by the conditions that they are having to live in. They are not able to cook for themselves and their families, and they are not able to make the choices that families would want to. They want to provide for their families, to have their visas, to be able to work, and to have a home and to care. I am finding that so many people who are in this country as asylum seekers or refugees are beginning to suffer from mental health problems because of the process they have endured and how long it is taking, while the Government allow them to remain in those unsatisfactory conditions.
At national level, the small boats failure exists due to the Tory Government’s incompetence. It was this Government’s deal to leave the European Union without a returns agreement in place that led to a huge increase in the number of dangerous crossings and the backlog in asylum cases. I am not sure why that backlog has not been resolved; obviously the Government do not have the appetite to really push forward to make that happen.
I am further outraged that this Bill breaches the refugee convention and gives the Home Secretary power to remove unaccompanied children. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has spoken eloquently about new clause 18, and I absolutely support the reasons that she gave and her persistence on making sure that children are treated equally and fairly and are the Government’s paramount concern.
It is clear that the Government are risking the welfare and safeguarding of vulnerable children. I therefore back amendment 148, which would remove from the Bill the Home Secretary’s power to remove unaccompanied children. I trust that many Members from across the House will back it, too. Most people want stronger border security and a caring and effective asylum system, but at the moment we have neither and the Bill does little to achieve them. Labour has a plan to prevent dangerous channel crossings and to reduce the asylum and refugee backlog. To improve this shameful piece of legislation, we must pass all the amendments I have mentioned in my speech.
Lastly, I mention the work of Together With Refugees, a coalition of more than 550 national and local organisations calling for an effective, fairer and humane approach to supporting refugees. I urge the Government to listen to it.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak to amendments 121 and 123 to 127, which are tabled in my name, and in support of amendment 1, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who speaks for the official Opposition, and to which I have added my name. I tabled my amendments as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I will not press them to a vote, because the Joint Committee has only just commenced our legal scrutiny of this Bill. That is not because we are dilatory in any way, but because the Bill has been bounced on us at such short notice. We have very little time to undertake that scrutiny, but we hope to report before the Bill has finished its passage through the House of Lords. At that point, I hope we will be able to recommend some detailed amendments with the backing of the whole Committee.
I did wonder whether it was worth my while spending hours in the Chamber this afternoon waiting to speak in detail to any of these amendments, as after six hours of debate yesterday, the Minister made no attempt whatever to address any of the detailed points raised by those speaking to Opposition amendments. We do not expect the Minister to agree with us, but we expect him at least to do us the courtesy of addressing what we have bothered to say, not just on behalf of our constituents, but on behalf of civic society and so on. That is how democratic scrutiny works.
There is no point in Government Members banging on about the sovereignty of this Parliament when the Government ignore most or all of the substantive points raised by Opposition Members during legislative scrutiny. That is not how a Bill Committee is supposed to work, and I appeal to the Minister to remember his duties not just to the Government and his political party, but to this Parliament and the constitution of this so-called parliamentary democracy. The way we are legislating in this House at the moment is an absolute disgrace. A Bill Committee is supposed to be line-by-line scrutiny. This fairly lengthy Bill raises huge issues in respect of our international legal obligations, as well as huge moral issues, but we have not conducted anything like line-by-line scrutiny.
If I am supposed to keep my comments to 10 minutes, I will barely scrape the surface of the amendments that I have tabled, which have not been dreamt out of thin air, but are informed by detailed legal scrutiny of the Bill by the lawyers who advise my Committee. Many of the amendments are informed by the existing unanimous report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Bill of Rights. This Bill sneaks in some of the things that were going to be in the Bill of Rights.
Yesterday, I spent a long time addressing in some detail the legal reasons, under reference to the convention and case law of the European Court of Human Rights, why it would breach the convention for the Government to ignore interim orders of the Court. I also explained how very rarely interim orders are passed in respect of the United Kingdom. The Minister just completely and crassly ignored every single point I sought to make. Frankly, his behaviour in failing to address any of the Opposition amendments makes a mockery of this Parliament and it makes a mockery of all their singing and dancing and fuss about the sovereignty of this Parliament.
Simon Hoare
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) set out a compelling argument about the sovereignty of this place, but I share the hon. and learned Lady’s concern that I think that speaks to an earlier time of how laws were made, when it was done in a far a more leisurely way, and when this place made far fewer laws and took its time. There were no programme motions, and people could take as long as they wished to. I take her point entirely, and does that not speak to the importance of scrutiny in the other place, but also of some oversight of the courts, so that if there is error in our lawmaking, the courts can point it out and we can rectify it, as and where necessary? I fundamentally agree with the point that she makes about the importance of court oversight.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before the hon. and learned Lady responds, I would just say that I gave some guidance. As she knows, it is not possible to impose a time limit, but guidance was to try to get in as many people as possible.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to you for making that clear, Dame Rosie.
Just to answer the hon. Gentleman’s points, yes, I do think that in our civilised, balanced, modern democracy, in which we have proper separation of powers, the role of the courts is very important, but the role of this Chamber is also very important. I am not too bothered about the other place. It is not elected; it does not represent people. I got elected—I went to the trouble of getting elected three times—to represent my constituents, and what I have to say about this Bill is an awful lot more important than what some unelected peer has to say. I say that with all due respect to many of the peers who I think do a fantastic job in trying to fill in the holes of the absolutely appalling way in which the Government seek to pilot legislation through this Parliament.
Simon Hoare
I fear I was not clear, because I was trying to support the hon. and learned Lady in what she was saying. I referenced the other place as, in a bicameral system, those in the second House provide time to reflect and give us their views, which can then consider again. However, the fundamental point, on which I thought or hoped was helpfully agreeing with the hon. and learned Lady, was the point she makes, as do others, about the importance of being able to have court oversight because we are inclined to rush our legislation in this place. Therefore, if we do get things wrong—we are only human, after all—it is important to have space for the courts to reflect, to hear evidence, and to advise and guide.
Joanna Cherry
I know the hon. Gentleman was trying to assist me, and I agree with him that court scrutiny is important—of course I do; I am a lawyer—but I am not going to let the Government off the hook on the absolutely woeful scrutiny that goes on, week in and week out, in this place. I am totally in favour of the bicameral system. When Scotland eventually becomes independent, which I hope will be during my lifetime, I would like to see a bicameral system in Scotland, because I like to see checks and balances, and I do not like Governments who throw their weight about and do not allow proper legislative scrutiny. That is my point and why I am spending some time on it now, because the way this has been conducted is, frankly, a disgrace. It really is a disgrace.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am very grateful that the hon. and learned Lady is raising these points because, as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, I know that we were very keen to carry out some prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill to assist the House when it came before us, but that was not possible because it had to be rushed through, it seems, so we have had no opportunity to have evidence sessions or to do any of the work that would really help the Government. Why are the Government so frightened of proper scrutiny of this Bill, which we all recognise is so important?
Joanna Cherry
I agree with the right hon. Lady, and I can tell her why the Government are afraid of proper scrutiny. It is because proper line-by-line scrutiny of this Bill would illustrate that it breaches our international obligations under the ECHR, breaches our obligations under the refugee convention and breaches our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking. That is to mention just three, but there is also the international convention on the rights of the child, and I could go on and on. That is why they do not want the scrutiny. What really infuriated me yesterday was that, when some of us were actually trying to make arguments based on evidence and the law, the Minister was far more interested in parroting the populist slogans coming from his Back Benchers, which really had no basis in law and no basis in evidence, than in addressing the amendments we are trying to make.
I will spend a bit of time talking about the amendments I have tabled, because I think they are important. It is not just that I think they are important, but they reflect issues that have been widely raised in briefings from home-based organisations, such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Law Society of England and Wales, and the Law Society of Scotland. I assure Conservative Members that the Law Society of Scotland is not a bastion of lefty lawyers—I wish it was, but it is not.
Simon Lightwood (Wakefield) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise in support of new clauses 22 and 27 tabled by the shadow Front Bench. Just before my election last year, the Nationality and Borders Act became law. The Government claimed that it would resolve the asylum backlog, with the then Home Secretary promising a
“long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 445.]
Here we are, nearly a year on, with no real progress on tackling this crisis. In fact, things have only got worse.
I strongly welcome new clause 22, which would enshrine the Home Secretary’s accountability in law. It would require her to regularly report on how her Department is eliminating the huge backlog of cases. It should not be a controversial amendment. The initial decision backlog has increased by 60% compared with 2021, rising to a record high of 160,000. Shockingly, less than 1% of last year’s claims from those arriving on small boats have been decided. We would not think so given the Home Secretary’s rhetoric, but asylum delays are getting even longer and the Home Office is taking 10,000 fewer decisions a year than in 2015. That has led to a record number of asylum seekers being housed long term in hotels and contingency accommodation.
That brings me to new clause 27. Some 37,000 people now reside in hotels, at a staggering cost to the taxpayer of £5 million every day. Decisions are still being made to use more. Local authorities, which have already faced significant funding cuts under successive Conservative Governments, are having those proposals forced on them without any say. That is the story in my own constituency. Two hotels are currently being used to accommodate asylum seekers, with plans for a third. New clause 27 would finally tackle this issue, placing a legal requirement on the Home Office to consult the local authority when considering new sites. Increasingly cash-strapped councils are having to step in to provide intensive support for vulnerable asylum seekers. They cannot plan to do that if there is no interaction with the Home Office.
There is no doubt that the asylum system is in chaos, and that this is a mess of the Conservative Government’s making. Tory MPs who vote against new clause 27 tonight will make the situation even worse for our councils. We need new clauses 22 and 27 for some much needed accountability, because of this Government’s woeful track record: promising to speed up claims, but delivering the opposite; promising to end the use of hotels, but instead seeing their use soar; and promising to return those deemed inadmissible, but returning only 21 people. We cannot accept yet another Bill that promises to do one thing but in practice does the opposite. That why I support new clauses 22 and 27, for accountability and transparency.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It will surprise no one to know that the Liberal Democrats will eventually vote against the Bill. In Committee it feels as if we are polishing the absurd. We do not want to do it, and we do not want to be talking about this Bill. That is not the same as saying that we do not want to solve these problems.
I would like to start by trying to take a little of the heat out of the issue if I can. The suggestion that Members on the Opposition Benches do not want to tackle the small boats problem is categorically not true. I have heard no one on the Opposition Benches say that they agree that a criminal should be allowed to stay here. No one here is defending the traffickers or not supporting the Home Office in deporting people who deserve to be deported. In fact, we are saying that the Home Office should be doing it better and faster. We should start by recognising that.
We should also recognise that this Bill is partly about the local elections. People have asked, “Why are the Government so scared of scrutiny?”. I do not think they are; I think they just want to get the Bill out now, because otherwise it will not make the printers for the local election leaflets that will drop in the next few weeks. I am sorry to be cynical, but that, I think, is what is happening here.
Dame Diana Johnson
I apologise for not being here earlier this afternoon. I had to go to the Liaison Committee’s meeting with the Prime Minister.
I want to start by following up on a point made by the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). In yesterday’s sitting, the issue of children and child refugees was raised more than 40 times by hon. Members across this Committee of the whole House. Many described their deep concern about how child refugees will be treated under the Bill. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but unfortunately he did not mention children once in his very short closing speech yesterday. It lasted just 13 minutes, which with 70 amendments before the Committee yesterday translates to about 10 seconds per amendment.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West that the lack of scrutiny of the Bill is a huge concern, especially considering the importance of the issues, the fact that the Government did not take up the Home Affairs Committee’s offer of pre-legislative scrutiny, the lack of evidence sessions, the large sweep of amendments tabled, the rushed process of introduction and the lack of any impact assessment. I hope that we will get a much more detailed and productive response from the Minister this evening.
I have tabled 10 amendments in this group, which essentially fall under one umbrella: protection for refugee children. All my amendments have the full support of the Children’s Commissioner and some arise from recommendations in the Home Affairs Committee’s small boats report, which we published last year.
I turn first to amendment 295. The Government have excluded unaccompanied children from the removal provisions in the Bill. We know that children will often have made very difficult and perilous journeys, probably at the hands of traffickers or smugglers. However, the Bill will oblige the Home Secretary to remove those unaccompanied children from the United Kingdom when they turn 18.
In the year ending September 2022, the UK received 5,152 applications for asylum from unaccompanied children. Many of them came from Sudan, a country facing political instability following years of civil war, where child marriage is rife for girls as young as 10. Under the Bill, a 13-year-old Sudanese girl, for example, could claim asylum in the UK, be placed in the care of a local authority and be fostered, spend five years at school, make friends, learn English, get an education, build a life and become a member of society, only to face removal on her 18th birthday. If that were allowed to happen, the Home Office would be removing a young woman who had built her life here and might only know this country as home. The Bill also dramatically increases the risk of children fleeing the system and disappearing before their 18th birthday, in the knowledge that they face certain removal. My amendment would not grant an automatic right for these children to remain in the United Kingdom; it would simply prevent their mandatory removal when they become adults, so that each case can be decided on an individual basis.
Turning to amendments 299 and 301, the Children’s Commissioner has raised concerns that under clause 3, the Home Secretary will still have the power to remove unaccompanied children. The explanatory notes state that this power will be used only in exceptional circumstances, but there is no further detail in the Bill about what that means. I tabled amendment 299 to establish the right of an unaccompanied child who makes a protection claim—including a claim to be a victim of slavery and human trafficking, as set out in section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act—to have that claim considered before potential removal. I have also added my name to amendment 121, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, which would strengthen the position further.
Although clause 5(4)(a) goes some way towards protecting such people by stopping their removal if they make a protection claim or a human rights claim, it is dependent on subsection (4)(b), which relies on the Secretary of State’s considering this to be an exceptional circumstance. I understand that such a power is likely to be used in respect of unaccompanied children from a country listed in new section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, under clause 50.
Without my amendment, the Home Secretary would, for example, decide the right of a 14-year-old unaccompanied asylum-seeking child from Albania to remain in the UK. Over recent months, there has been a growing view that Albanian boys are not in need of protection on their arrival in the UK. In fact, they are exceptionally vulnerable, having often been trafficked here without proper protection and pushed into forced labour or criminality. Again, hanging the threat of removal over these children’s heads is a guaranteed way of ensuring that those who arrive here unaccompanied will try to go it alone—run away from care, and slip out of the system and into the arms of traffickers and abusers. Therefore, amendment 301 goes further by removing the power of the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of an unaccompanied child.
The Home Affairs Committee’s report on channel crossings, produced last year, raised grave concerns about the Home Office’s record of safeguarding children, from failures to identify vulnerable children through screening and assessments to failures of communication when transferring safeguarding responsibilities from one agency to another. There is also the disastrous and unforgivable failure of children going missing on the Home Office’s watch.
I greatly fear that the Home Office is simply not up to the job of keeping children safe and secure. That is why I ask the Minister to reconsider clauses 15 and 16, which set out how the Home Office would accommodate a child and would be given safeguarding responsibilities that currently sit with a local authority. These clauses are incredibly thin when it comes to such an essential issue as safeguarding children, and they make no provision for the state of the accommodation to be provided. Will the accommodation be regulated, which body will inspect it, how will decisions be made, and what support will be available for these children?
The Children’s Commissioner has made it clear that she does not believe that the Home Office is the right body to oversee the safeguarding of children, and I completely agree. That is why I have supported amendments 143, 144 and 145, tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), to ensure that our current statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children and children with families are not disregarded.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare my registered interest as chairman of the safeguarding board of a children’s group.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair and fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee. I agree with many of her observations, particularly on the recommendations that have come out of various Home Affairs Committee reports.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the specific conundrum in which children—perhaps even babies—who are brought here by their parents, clearly beyond their own power if they are very young, will fall foul of the proposed regulations because they have entered illegally. They will effectively carry a black spot for life, through no making of their own. What would happen if that baby, when he or she grows up, marries a UK citizen? They would effectively not be able to come to their spouse’s country of origin.
These are not completely hypothetical scenarios. They are very real problems that could occur. I was about to say that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water, because the Bill has unintended consequences that could seriously harm a young person’s prospects, for a crime they had no part in committing.
I want to speak for a rather shorter time than I did yesterday, because I will focus on two aspects—how children are still able to be deported as children, and the problems around detention. I think there is a problem in the Bill with trying to adultify children. I acknowledge that there is a difficult situation regarding families and I have concerns about their treatment, but I have also seen—as has the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—cases of people smugglers using children by matching them up with supposed relatives, so that they can come across. When we were last in Dover, we saw such a case; the supposed uncle and the child did not even speak the same language. We have to be cognisant of the fact that these criminals will use children to try to help the passage of other people who are paying them large quantities of money.
I am absolutely in favour of a much more robust and efficient age verification system, because it is a safeguarding issue. We have seen instances of people claiming to be children, who later turn out to be adults and who have actually attended school alongside school-age children—in positions of responsibility, alongside children. This is an important safeguarding issue. Many other European countries already have age verification techniques, which involve various medical interventions. We need to look seriously at age verification if we are to get this one right—but, again, it is a sensitive issue.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the concerns regarding the impact on modern day slavery legislation, which were mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I hope the Minister will look carefully at how we can preserve those principles while clamping down on some abuses that may have been happening.
Let me concentrate on amendments 139 to 145—those in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends—which would amend clauses 2, 3, 7 and 11.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend made some very good points yesterday. Will he confirm how happy he was with the Minister’s confirmation that safe and legal routes would, “if necessary”, be brought forward
“with our intention being to open them next year”
while
“launching the local authority consultation on safe and legal routes at the same time”?—[Official Report, 27 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 777.]
Does that give him and those of us who supported his amendment the reassurance needed on that score?
Tim Loughton
Sir Roger, if I do too much back-jobbing to yesterday’s business, I am sure you will call me out of order, but let me tell my hon. Friend that there were some intensive discussions with the relevant bodies to get assurances. They were on the basis that I need to see some fairly convincing and robust action in the next few weeks before we get to Report, otherwise we will revisit those amendments and new clauses with a vengeance then. I have given the Government the benefit of the doubt at this stage, so I hope we can work constructively to achieve what I think the Prime Minister wants to achieve. It is what he has put on record that he wants to achieve, but some of us want to see more urgency and some clear undertakings on the face of the Bill.
That was yesterday’s business; let us return to today’s business. I do not intend at this stage to force my amendments to a vote, but I do want some assurances from the Minister. These are very important principles regarding very vulnerable children, and I want to see some concrete action when it comes to proceedings on Report. Frankly, if we do not get that, as with my case yesterday for safe and legal routes, the Bill will be much less easy to defend, and much more vulnerable to being pulled apart in another place and by lawyers. I want the Bill to go through, but I want it to be a balanced Bill that can work and that does not fall at the first hurdle.
The clauses that I am concerned with are those that place a duty on the Home Secretary to remove people, and those with an impact on children and that contain details on removal procedures. I am also concerned with the clause on the powers of detention: here, we must absolutely make sure that we do not adultify children; and they must be subject to the same safeguarding considerations as any other child already legally in the United Kingdom who is taken into custody or subject to some form of restriction on his or her liberty.
It is also worth repeating, and it has been said by several people, that no child rights impact assessment has been undertaken on the Bill, which is of concern. It would benefit the Government if they could back up the legislation with that sort of analysis. We also need justification for the removal of the duty to consult with the Independent Family Returns Panel. Those are the reasons why many children’s organisations and, indeed, the Children’s Commissioner have been vociferous on various aspects of the Bill.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In his point about the interaction with the Children Act and Home Office responsibility, this is where we get to the nub of the problem. The characterisation of this debate has become extremely unfortunate, especially when we talk about issues such as detention, which I am sure that, in practice, the Government do not mean. This is really an issue of safeguarding first and foremost and of identifying genuine cases that require all the safeguarding measures that are underpinned by the Children Act. Does he agree that it is a shame, to say the least, that we are not focusing on children in that context, rather than in the context of detention, internment or whatever we want to call it? That language is not helpful.
Tim Loughton
I shall come on to detention in a minute, but I entirely agree with the principle of the point that my right hon. Friend is making, which is that, whatever we think about our immigration and asylum system, a child should be treated no differently, however he or she arrived in this country, than one who was born here and is in the care of parents or whatever. There are times in the Bill where it is unclear that that is the case.
All these terms need to be subject to the child welfare prioritisation in the Children Act 1989 and also have regard to the 1989 UN convention on the rights of the child of 1989. Under article 3.1, it says that
“the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.
That has been upheld in UK legislation, not least in the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
In giving the Home Secretary the power to remove unaccompanied children when they reach the age of 18—and potentially before—the Bill could see a child arriving alone in the UK aged 10, for example, having fled war and persecution, and be allowed to integrate into UK society, develop friendships and attend school only to be forcibly removed from the UK as soon as they turn 18. There are concerns that a child approaching 18, a 17 and three quarters-year-old, could be encouraged to go under the radar and go underground for fear of that knock on the door when they reach 18. We need to treat that sensitively, because otherwise we are creating a greater problem and putting some of those children at greater risk than they might have been. A decade ago, the majority of unaccompanied children were granted temporary leave to remain, rather than refugee status, until they turned 18, and we know that the fear of removal forced many of those children to go underground and go missing, at extreme risk of exploitation.
My amendment 139 inserts a fifth condition in the Bill that must be met on the duty of the Home Secretary to remove someone from the United Kingdom. Amendment 140 details that the additional fifth consideration is that the person to be removed is either over 18 or a minor in the care of an adult, typically a family member. That would have the effect of ensuring that the Bill does not capture unaccompanied children. Amendments 141 and 142 are consequential amendments, due to the rewording of clauses 3 and 7. Amendment 141 removes subsections 3(1) to 3(4), and the anomalies in subsections (1) and (2) that still give the Home Secretary unrestricted powers.
Now, Ministers—[Interruption.] I am not sure if those on the Front Bench want to listen to this, Sir Roger; it is a little difficult to try to make a speech with people having conversations right in front of me. Ministers claim that there are exceptional circumstances only in which children would be removed from the United Kingdom, and have given examples of those exceptional circumstances, such as to reunite a child with family overseas. Okay—but a child who is to be reunited with family overseas can leave the UK of his or her own accord, or subject to the ruling of a judge, in the same way as we would release a child from care into adoption, for example. I do not see that as a necessary exceptional circumstance.
If the Government are really convinced that there are exceptional circumstances where that needs to be done, there should be more detail on the Bill, or at least explanation in the explanatory notes, because there is none. As things stand, the Home Secretary has the power to remove any child, at her whim, for reasons not specified in this Bill. That is a concern. If the Government have good reason for that, we deserve an explanation of those reasons, and it is for this House to judge on how credible and necessary those reasons are.
Under the amendments, children who arrive in the UK on their own and seek asylum would continue to have their asylum claims heard here, rather than being left in limbo until they reached 18 when, under the Bill, they would face detention and then removal. The amendments do not mean that every child who arrives here on their own will go on to get permission to stay. Instead, they mean that the Home Office must process their claims and, crucially, treat them as children rather than punishing them.
Amendments 143 to 145 deal with the issue of detentions and, along with the amendments I have already described, maintain the safeguards that were put in place under Conservative-led Governments to protect children from the harms of immigration detention. In 2009, more than 1,000 children were detained in immigration removal centres but, following changes made by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, over the next decade the average was 132 children per year.
What was more, those children could not be detained for longer than 24 hours if they were unaccompanied, or 72 hours if they were with their family members, extendable to a week if a Minister agreed it was necessary. We then legislated for those limits in the Immigration Act 2014, under a Conservative-led Government. Amendments 143 and 145 ensure that those safeguards continue to apply.
I am not asking for a change in the law; I am just asking that the safeguards that were deemed to be sensible and necessary back in 2014 still apply to the same sort of vulnerable children. They would prevent unaccompanied children from being locked up for more than 24 hours. Amendment 145 would ensure that children who were with their family members could still only be detained for a week at the very most and, when they were, that it would be in specific pre-departure accommodation, rather than anywhere the Home Secretary might wish, as the Bill envisages.
Under clause 11, the Home Secretary has wide powers to detain anyone covered by the four conditions in clause 2, which, without my earlier amendment, still includes unaccompanied children. There is no time limit for how long a child can be detained. That amounts effectively to indefinite detention of children of any age anywhere that the Home Secretary considers it appropriate. Under clause 12, the Home Secretary will have a significantly expanded power to decide what a reasonable length of detention is. It is all subject to the definition of what is reasonably necessary and severely restricts court scrutiny of whether that is reasonable or not. Surely that cannot be right for children. I am not seeking to challenge the increased restrictions on adults, but surely we are not going to throw all that out of the window—particularly after all the controversy on how we age-appropriately detain children who are already in this country—by adultifying migrant children, and some very vulnerable children at that.
There is also a practical consideration. If everyone who crossed the channel last year had been detained for 28 days, on 4 September 2022, no fewer than 9,161 people, including children, would have been detained. That amounts to four times the current detention capacity available in the United Kingdom. Where do the Government intend physically to place them—especially minors who need to be in age-appropriate accommodation?
I am also concerned about how the four Hardial Singh principles from 1983 apply to this part of the Bill. Those principles are that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances, and that, if it becomes apparent that the Home Secretary will not be able to effect removal or deportation within a reasonable period, she should not seek to exercise the power of detention. The Government have to make up their mind about the grounds on which they think they need to detain children. Again, I understand the sensitivities—people claiming to be children may later turn out not to be and may abscond—but the Government need to have a clear idea about what they will do in a short space of time to justify detention when those people arrive. We do not have that level of detail or clarity in the Bill, so it is entirely incumbent on the Minister to give assurances to the Committee that children will not be disadvantaged in that way.
Amendment 143 would remove the provision enabling a person “of any age” to be
“detained in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
and would reapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children. That was good enough in 2014; I do not think that the way we should regard and treat vulnerable children has changed so that we need to change the law through the Bill.
Amendment 145 would remove the provisions that disapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of children and their families. I do not think that unreasonable, but if the Government want to take issue with me, it is incumbent on them to say why they want to make the changes. I have gone along with most of the rest of the Bill. I have given the Government the benefit of the doubt on what they are going to do, on the detail that they will provide, and on the timing of safe and legal routes, but we need serious assurances by Report, and, I hope, some good signage from the Minister when he gets to his feet shortly, on why law on protections that children have been entitled to—safeguards that we have been proud to give them—needs to be changed in the way that the Government are proposing.
We all want to do the right thing by vulnerable children. Most of us would like to see safe and legal routes that, as I said yesterday, involve something equivalent to a Dubs II scheme, whereby genuinely unaccompanied minors in places of danger are brought to and given safe haven in the United Kingdom. I want to continue in that tradition. I want to ensure that we are offering safe passage and safe haven to genuinely vulnerable children. I do not want them to be penalised by the wording of the Bill in the way that they could be. I am happy to take assurances, but if I do not get them by Report, I do not think that I will be alone in wanting to press various amendments to force those assurances into the Bill.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I stand today on behalf of the hundreds of constituents who have sent me emails and letters and on behalf of the children at St Dunstan’s Catholic Primary School, which is a school of sanctuary.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I start by congratulating Humza Yousaf on becoming Scotland’s new First Minister, and wish him every success in taking Scotland forward to independence. He, of course, comes from a heritage beyond these shores, and that should be a matter of celebration and pride.
Once again, the amendments before us today show that this Bill pleases nobody. Opposition Members are trying on a cross-party basis to restore some basic elements of humanity and decency to the process and make sure that the UK actually continues to have something that resembles an asylum system, but it seems that for many Tory Back Benchers, the Bill does not go far enough: Tory extremists want to make it even more punitive. We see that, for example, in amendment 136, tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who is no longer in his place. Attempting to ban the use of hotels for temporary accommodation is simply gesture politics. It is probably unworkable and is certainly impractical, and is likely to further increase, not reduce, the cost to the taxpayer. I wonder how often the hon. Member and many others who have spoken today have actually met with asylum seekers who are staying in such hotels—who, incidentally, I am happy to consider as constituents of mine who have a voice that needs to be represented in this place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, too many Tory Back Benchers speak of asylum seekers as some sort of amorphous, dehumanised blob, which I think is completely inappropriate. The asylum seekers I have met, through the Maryhill Integration Network and elsewhere, do not want to live in hotels: they want to be able to work and contribute to society. The way to get asylum seekers out of hotels is to give them the right to work, the right to earn a living—which, by the way, is another fundamental human right—and to let them pay for their own accommodation and pay tax into the system. At the end of their asylum process, if their claim is rejected, there have always been processes for removal and return; however, if their claim is accepted, they will be much further down the road of community integration, and at far less cost to the taxpayer. Instead, this Bill and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will channel yet more money into the hands of outsourcing companies such as Mears and Serco, and many of us will continue to hear stories at our constituency surgeries of substandard and unsuitable accommodation being paid for by taxpayers.
Today’s group of new clauses and amendments really gets to the heart of what the Government say this Bill is trying to achieve. Many of us suspect that what the Government are actually trying to achieve is a fight, first with the House of Lords, then with the Supreme Court and then with the European Court of Human Rights, but much of that was covered yesterday. Clause 2 provides sweeping powers and duties that add up to what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has described as a ban on asylum.
During the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act, many of us asked how the United Kingdom, which is surrounded by water, can ever be the first safe country of arrival for an undocumented migrant, an issue that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) touched on. How can anyone traveling from Iran, Eritrea, Sudan, or practically anywhere else on the globe be expected to meet the third condition in clause 2(4) about not passing through a safe third country? Maybe there is some inventive way that the Minister can tell us about—he has paid so much attention to the debate. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) should not have been surprised that the Minister was having conversations on the Front Bench, because he has spent most of the debate looking at his phone. I do not know whether there has been an update to Angry Birds or Candy Crush, or maybe it is just a particularly difficult Wordle today.
Nevertheless, what are the inventive ways in which people can reach this country without passing through a safe third country? If someone pushes off from the coast of Eritrea, navigates the horn of Africa, sails round the Cape of Good Hope, makes it up the north and south Atlantic ocean without straying into anybody else’s territorial waters and lands on the south coast of England, will they be allowed to claim asylum under clause 2? In fact, will there even be a way of knowing? That person would not even be allowed to make a claim, so when would they get the chance to prove that that was the journey they had undertaken?
In order to mitigate these ridiculous restrictions, the SNP has tabled amendments 186 to 196. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central for humanising the people affected in the way that she did. The amendments would offer protection to people who are under the age of 18; people already determined as refugees under the terms of the refugee convention; people who face discrimination because of their sexual orientation; people who are victims of torture; people who have been trafficked or face slavery; people who have HIV or AIDS; and people who have come from Ukraine or from Afghanistan. Given the outrage we have heard today from sections of the Conservative party about the treatment of asylum seekers from Afghanistan, I hope the Government will be prepared to accept our amendment 189, or they will face the prospect of their Members joining us in the Lobby in support of it later on.
I asked the Minister yesterday, and he did not bother to respond—again, I am not sure he was listening—where the evidence is for the deterrent effect that these powers and the threat of immediate deportation are supposed to have. Why has the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 not had that impact? Should those powers not have already started to work, because the powers in clause 2(3) are backdated to 7 March, when the Bill was introduced? Surely there should already be a slowdown in the number of arrivals. If there is a reduction in arrivals from Albania, it is because of a separate arrangement that the Government have come to. The reality is that this clause and these powers will not have a deterrent effect.
Freedom from Torture identifies four principal reasons for its clients undertaking perilous journeys to reach these shores. One is
“to join family or community that could offer security and support”,
and another is
“because of familiarity with the UK’s language, culture and institutions”.
The UK Government spend thousands, probably millions of pounds promoting those things abroad, saying, “Britain is great. Come and get a Chevening scholarship. Come to the United Kingdom”, except when someone actually tries to apply, they cannot, unless they have an awful lot of money. Another of the reasons is
“the hope of reaching a place where human rights are respected”,
which is certainly ironic given the Bill in front of us and the clauses we are debating today. The final reason is
“a lack of safety in the countries they were passing through.”
There is very little that the Government can do to address any of those pull factors through legislation. Several stakeholders make the point that many arriving here have little or no familiarity with the asylum rules, so the punitive measures in the Bill, particularly the powers in clause 2, will do nothing to change that.
Amendments 174 and 175, which I have tabled, relate more specifically to the debate we heard yesterday about the clauses on safe and legal routes. The amendments would ensure that this House has a meaningful say on what the cap or target for entrants under safe and legal routes should be. The current proposal for a statutory instrument drafted by Ministers with no room for amendment would mean really no say at all. Brexit was supposed to be about parliamentary sovereignty and this place taking back control of decision making, so why Conservative Back Benchers are so keen to hand over powers to the Executive is not clear at all.
I also welcome new clause 29 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). The commitment of Welsh Ministers and Senedd Cymru to making their country a place of sanctuary is hugely encouraging, and she is right to seek to make sure that the clauses in the Bill recognise and do not interfere with that commitment. Perhaps nation of sanctuary status is something that our new First Minister and his team will consider for Scotland, because we already aspire to those ideals, even if we do not use that formal term.
In conclusion, it is worth reflecting that Greek philosophers figured out in about 500 BC that the world was round. That does not seem to have sunk in on the far reaches of the Tory Back Benches. We cannot just keep pushing people away in the expectation that they might fall off a cliff at the edge of a flat earth. If we keep pushing people around the globe, eventually they will come back to us. Migration is a global reality. It is part of human nature. Over the centuries, people had to flee these islands because their crops were devastated by blight or because they were forced from the land to make way for sheep. It is just as well that America, Canada and Australia were not implementing hostile environment immigration policies back then, and it is just as well that we have global treaties and conventions to protect human rights and regulate how refugees and asylum seekers are treated by countries of arrival. That is not for this Government, however.
The exceptionalist attitude displayed by some Tories, which first led to Brexit, and which we see in amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, now stretches beyond the European Union and the Council of Europe to key United Nations frameworks that have sought to keep everyone on this planet safe since the end of the second world war. Withdrawing from those frameworks might be their ambition, but it is not the ambition of people in Glasgow North or people across Scotland. If the Government continue down the road they are going, the international agreement we will be withdrawing from is the Treaty of Union 1707.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Having studied and listened to the entire debate today has only strengthened my resolve that we must oppose this rotten Bill in its entirety. It is inhumane. It is immoral, and it demonises and scapegoats the most vulnerable, desperate people who are fleeing violence, terror and poverty. We should be welcoming them with open arms.
As others have said, I have to express my concern at some of the inflammatory and inaccurate comments by some Conservative Members this afternoon. I also want to reiterate the concerns expressed about the lack of scrutiny: 10 or 12 hours to be considering in excess of 130 amendments is totally unacceptable. Notwithstanding my belief that the Bill should be thrown out in its entirety, I want to set out my concerns about some of the clauses and to speak in support of a number of amendments before the Committee.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just had an email from one of my constituents who works in the health service. She has spoken to me about the immense contribution that has been made by people who have come to this country fleeing persecution, been granted asylum, and are now working in the national health service. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important point? I have also had people writing to me about how damaging the Bill is to the reputation of this country as a safe haven, and to the values we stand up for.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] Thank you. I would like the Committee to behave like that all the time. It is most discourteous for conversations to be taking place on the Back Benches, particularly among people who have not been in the Chamber for much of the debate. Some of us want to hear what Members have to say.
Beth Winter
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate your intervention.
In conclusion, there is an alternative, as is evident from the number of extremely progressive and positive amendments. We must clear the backlog, expand safe routes, and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), in co-operation with Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union on safe routes, was excellent. We must be welcoming vulnerable people to what I would describe as a nation of sanctuary.
I will finish by reflecting on the words of the First Minister of Wales. A week or two ago he spoke about,
“the basic belief that, in our brief lives, we owe a duty of care…to our family and friends, but also to strangers”.
He said that that simple belief lies at the heart of
“our ambition to be a nation of sanctuary. To provide a warm welcome to families forced out of their homes…all of those who seek sanctuary from wherever, and however, they may come”
to our shores. Care, compassion, respect, dignity, humanity, inclusivity and kindness—those are the values that I hold dear, and those are the values and principles that we should seek to uphold. This Bill does not do that at all. We must reject it.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). I share her concerns about the Bill, and indeed about the process that we have undergone in scrutinising it.
I want to make three short points. The first and most important one is to try to encourage a little more interest in clauses 30 to 36 that relate to citizenship. They were touched on by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the former Attorney General, but they are incredibly important and quite alarming. It might seem slightly odd for an SNP MP to be rushing to rescue the concept of British citizenship, but citizenship is vital. It is a source of stability and other rights. Deprivation of citizenship, or blocking people from citizenship, as in the Bill, is something that should be looked at closely and seriously.
Clause 30 is entitled
“Persons prevented from obtaining British citizenship etc”
and it sets all the alarm bells ringing. Subsection (4) states:
“A person (“P”) falls within this subsection if P was born in the United Kingdom on or after 7 March 2023, and either of P’s parents has ever (whether before or after P’s birth) met the four conditions in section 2.”
That unbelievably broad clause means that children, and indeed some adults, will face being blocked from accessing the right to British citizenship not because of their own actions, but because of the actions of their parents, potentially even decades ago. To me that is ludicrous overreach, even if someone is in the space of accepting the Government’s premise of deterrence. In many cases, it could be children born here. One parent could become a British citizen and still that child, born in Britain, could be deprived of their own British citizenship. Or that child could be born here and spend the first 10 years of their life here, and be deprived of their British citizenship just because of the actions of one of their parents, potentially many years previously. It could be a child brought here at a young age and whose entire life has been built here. Surely, even to the Bill’s most ardent supporters, depriving kids of British citizenship because of what one of their parents did is a step too far? That is absolutely wild, but that is precisely what clauses 30 to 36 do and that should be looked at again.
The second point I want to make is on the detention clauses. Like many Members have said today, fewer safeguards and protections with more detentions is another tragic and backward step. Other colleagues have set out most of the key concerns. I just want to repeat the point made on Second Reading and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) today: any idea that the right of habeas corpus, or a petition to the nobile officium in Scotland, makes all of this fine is absolutely preposterous. These are much more limited procedures for challenging detention, confined to questions of authority to detain rather than errors in decision making. They are also infinitely less accessible and speedy compared with a bail application to the tribunal, especially for vulnerable people. This set of clauses is designed to stop people who should be freed from detention being able to secure their release from detention, and nothing else.
My third and final point relates to clause 4 and the permanent state of inadmissibility of claims. This is the problem at the heart of the Bill. It is a permanent ban on making certain claims, which our amendment 294 seeks to address. Permanent inadmissibility means that, over time, thousands of refugees and others who qualify for protection will be left in limbo, because the Government will not have the capacity to remove them all to Rwanda, but also, because of the Bill, quite simply will not be allowed to process and recognise their claims here. Refugees will end up spending year after year after year in hotels or in dismal former military barracks without any hope of being able to move on.
The penny that does not seem to have dropped right across the Committee is that it also means that many who are not refugees will also be left in limbo in the United Kingdom. Again, the Government will not have the capacity to remove them all to Rwanda and, because of this very Bill, the Government will not be able to remove them to their home countries. If you do not process their asylum claims, you cannot—with a few exceptions—remove the person to their home country. That is recognised in clause 5. So thousands of people will also be left in limbo forever. In fact, the Bill almost creates a perverse incentive. If you are an overstayer—one hon. Member spoke about overstayers—probably your best bet is to make an asylum claim and then be left in that permanent state of limbo. It is an absolutely mad Bill. It does not make any sense at all. That, I suspect, is why we have not seen the impact assessment—it will reveal most of that.
The Bill will not solve any backlog. The backlog is going to balloon. More people will be jammed into hotels and military barracks, not fewer. The backlog will essentially just be given a different name: inadmissibility. That is what the Bill achieves and nothing more. A different backlog and incredible cruelty—that is what the Bill is all about and that is all it is ever going to achieve if it is passed.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I seek your guidance. The Bill is reaching the closing minutes of Committee stage. Last Thursday, in Business questions, the Leader of the House said in answer to my question as to the whereabouts of the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill:
“I have spoken to the Home Office about the impact assessment; it is quite right that we publish it before Committee stage.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 451.]
As the right hon. Lady has previously asserted her strong support for Parliament to have impact assessments in order for colleagues on all sides to scrutinise any Government properly, and I know her to be a woman of her word, I am baffled. I am sure it could not possibly be that the Government have found the impact to be the £3 billion cost to the taxpayer that the Refugee Council found. Sir Roger, could you tell me of any mechanism I can employ, even now, in these closing minutes, to enable, encourage or merely exhort the Minister to publish the Government’s impact assessments?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
The shadow Leader of the House has been in the House long enough to know that it is the responsibility of the Government, not the Chair, to publish or not publish Government papers. However, she asked me a question and has placed her point on the record. I am about to call the Minister of State to reply, and he has heard what the hon. Lady has said.
Robert Jenrick
It has been a wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I will not detain the Committee by dwelling on the Government amendments as they are all, essentially, technical in nature. I will instead set out to respond to as many of the amendments and new clauses that have been debated as possible. I take issue with those who said that the Government provided insufficient time to debate. I note that both today and yesterday, the debates have concluded almost an hour before the allocated time.
Mrs May
I wonder if my right hon. Friend would clarify one point. He just said that the Government will act to deal with all people who have come here illegally. That is not what the Bill does. It has caveats—it deals only with those who have come here illegally through a third safe country. Could he just clarify that?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is correct that the Bill does not seek to change the arrangements for those who come here directly and claim asylum from a place of danger. That is an important point and a principle of our long-standing asylum obligations. Let us be honest: the reason we are here today is because of those who pass through safe countries such as France. Last year, 45,000 people crossed the channel in small boats from a place of safety with a fully functioning asylum system. This scheme applies to those individuals, with certain carefully thought through mechanisms to protect those who would be placed in serious or irreversible harm should they be taken to a safe third country. It is essential that we pass this scheme as it is, rather than as the leaky sieve that the hon. Member for Glasgow Central wishes so that she can undermine the intent of this policy.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister says that people should come here directly. Will he tell me how many direct flights there are to Heathrow from Yemen, Afghanistan or Syria?
Robert Jenrick
People do come here directly from places of danger. The hon. Lady is incorrect. We have long-standing arrangements for those people who transit through other countries to come here, so her point is wrong.
The wider issue, which she and I have debated on many occasions, is that we have heard continuously from her and her SNP colleagues a kind of humanitarian nimbyism. They come to this Chamber to say how concerned they are for those in danger around the world, yet they take disproportionately fewer of those very people into their care in Scotland.
Let me turn to the serious questions that have been raised about children. We approach these issues with the seriousness that they deserve and from the point of view that the UK should be caring and compassionate to any minor who steps foot on these shores. These are not easy choices, but the challenge we face today is that large numbers of minors are coming to the United Kingdom at the behest of human traffickers or people smugglers, and we have to deter that. We must break the cycle of that business model.
Since 2019, the number of unaccompanied minors coming to the UK has quadrupled, meaning that thousands of unaccompanied minors have been placed in grave danger in dinghies and then brought to the UK, in some cases to enter the black economy and in others for even more pernicious reasons. I have met those children. I have seen them at Western Jet Foil, and I can tell the House that there is no dignity in that situation. As a parent, seeing children in dinghies risking their lives is one of the most appalling things one could see. I want to stop that. The measures we are bringing forward today intend to stop that.
We are going to do this in the most sensitive manner we can, and the powers that we are bringing forward under the Bill do just that. The duty to make arrangements for removal does not apply to unaccompanied children until they become adults. There is a power, not a duty, to remove unaccompanied children. As a matter of policy, the power to remove will be exercised only in very limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, or if they are nationals of a safe country identified in clause 50 and can be safely returned to their home country. It is important to stress at this point that that power is already in law and is used on occasion when an unaccompanied child arrives and we are able to establish arrangements for their safe return. The Illegal Migration Bill simply expands the number of countries deemed safe for that removal.
Stella Creasy
The Government have accepted that they will be subject to an article 3 investigation to see whether there have been breaches of the Human Rights Act at Manston—basically the treatment of people in inhumane and degrading ways. The Government are resisting that being an independent inquiry. Why not wait until that inquiry happens? Why not learn the lessons of how they got into the mess at Manston before moving forward with this legislation, so that we do not risk again seeing pregnant women and unaccompanied children in the dinghies and in the devastation that the Minister just set out? Why press ahead without learning the lessons of his previous failures?
Robert Jenrick
Nobody could dispute the seriousness with which I took the situation at Manston in the autumn, or dispute that the situation we are in today is incomparably different. Manston is a well-run facility, led by a superb former Army officer, Major General Capps, and we are ensuring that the site is both decent and legal. Responsibility for the failures at Manston in the autumn of last year does not rest with the Government. It does not rest with the people who work at Manston. It rests with the people smugglers and the human traffickers. It was a direct result of tens of thousands of people coming into our country illegally in a short period of time.
I can tell the hon. Lady that the same thing will happen again if we do not break the cycle and stop the boats. More people will come later this year. She knows that the numbers are estimated to rise this year unless we take robust action. That is what this Bill sets out to achieve. If we take this action, fewer people will put themselves in danger and fewer children will be in this situation. That is what I want to see, and I think that is what the British public want to see as well.
Edward Timpson
On unaccompanied children, may I ask the Minister to address the point I raised about the power in clause 16 for the Secretary of State to remove a child from local authority care, when the Secretary of State does not have powers under the Children Act and the responsibilities that follow? Will he set out the reasons behind that—if not in full now, certainly before Report?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that comment. As an important aside that relates to other issues he has raised, nothing in the Bill disapplies the Children Act, which will continue to apply in all respects with regard to the children we deal with in this situation. In answer to his particular point, we are taking this power so that in the very small number of judicious cases in which we set out to remove a child, we can take them from the care of the local authority into the responsibility of the Home Office for the short period before they are removed from the country. I have given two examples of situations in which we would use that power, and I will happily give them again. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is concerned about this point.
The first situation is where we are seeking to return a young person to their relatives in another country. I think it is incredibly important that we keep the ability to do so, because that does happen occasionally. It is obviously the right thing to do to return somebody to their mother, their father, their uncle or the support network that they have in another country.
The other situation is where we are removing somebody who has arrived as an unaccompanied minor to another safe country, where we are confident that they will be met on arrival by social services and provided with all the support that one would expect. That happens all the time here with unaccompanied minors; I think the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, drawing on his experience as a local Member of Parliament around Heathrow, that it happens regularly. It is important that we continue to have that option, because we should not be bringing people into local authority care for long periods in the UK when we can safely return them home, either to their relatives or to their home country, where they can be safeguarded appropriately.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the Minister respond to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)? Where is the impact assessment for the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
The impact assessment will be published in due course.
Let me continue with the points I was making. I return to a question that has been raised on several occasions about our policy on the detention of minors. Let me say, speaking as a parent, that of course we take this incredibly seriously. We do not want to detain children. We have to apply the highest moral standards when we take this decision.
The circumstance in which we would use that power is where there is an age assessment dispute about an unaccompanied minor. It is easy to dismiss that, but it happens all the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) was correct to raise his experience as a local authority leader. There are a very large number of such disputes: between 2016 and December of last year, there were 7,900 asylum cases in which age was disputed and subsequently resolved. In almost half of those cases —49%—the people in question were found to be adults.
Where there is a live age assessment dispute, it would be wrong for the Government to place those people in the same accommodation as minors who are clearly children, creating safeguarding risks for them. I am not willing to do that. I want to ensure that those children are properly protected. When I visited our facilities at Western Jet Foil recently, I asked a member of staff who was the oldest person they had encountered who had posed as a minor. They said that that person was 41 years of age! Does anyone in this House seriously want to see a 41-year-old man placed with their children? I do not want to see it, and that is the circumstance in which we are going to take and use these very judicious powers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) raised a number of important points in respect of his amendment on mandatory scientific age assessments. I can say to him that not only are those valid points, but the Government are considering carefully how we should proceed in this regard. The UK is one of the very few European countries that do not currently employ scientific methods of age assessment. In January, the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee published a report on the issue. The Home Secretary and I are giving careful consideration to its recommendations, and I hope to be in a position to say more on Report.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way one last time, but I want to bring my remarks to a close as soon as possible.
Alison Thewliss
I have constituents who have been waiting for 20 months in a hotel for the Home Office to conduct a substantive interview. Others have been waiting for 16 months, 18 months, two years or 40 months. If the Home Office processed those people, they would have no need to be in hotels.
Robert Jenrick
We are doing that. That is the plan that the Prime Minister set out in December, on which we are already making good progress.
Let me say two further things to the hon. Lady. First, the only way to reduce the number of people in the system is to stop the boats. No system, even the most efficient system in the world, could cope with 45,000 people breaking into our country against our laws and then seeking asylum. Secondly, the hon. Lady knows that the way to get people out of hotels is for all parts of the United Kingdom to step up and provide the accommodation that is required, but she and her SNP colleagues consistently decline to do that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) made a thoughtful and important point in his amendment 283, relating to the citizenship provisions in the Bill. I note his concerns, and we will reflect on them and come back to him. I look forward to engaging with him, but let me make this point. There is a route towards entering the United Kingdom, even for someone who, at some earlier stage, had entered illegally and been caught by the provisions of the Bill. We specifically included that to ensure that we continue to meet our international law obligations.
My right hon. and learned Friend was right to say that there is a different route and standard with respect to achieving citizenship. The reason that we did that was our belief that British citizenship is a special privilege which is not something that should be given lightly, but that if someone breaks into our country and breaches our laws, there should be a higher standard to be applied before that person gains citizenship of our country.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to give way again. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Lady. Let me turn to—[Interruption.] Let me turn—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Twenty-seven Members have taken part in the debate this afternoon, and there are rather more Members present who are speaking but who did not take part in the debate. The 27 who were here, taking part in the debate, have a right to hear what the Minister has to say, and it would be good if they could do it without interruption. That means without interruption from either side of the House.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Sir Roger. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) does not like the Bill. She is going to vote against the Bill and she does not want to stop the boats. She has tabled a whole raft of amendments with her colleagues, and we all know what the purpose of those amendments really is.
Joanna Cherry
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Is it in order for the Minister to so misrepresent my position? I tabled my amendments as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, not on behalf of the Scottish National party, and the point I wish to make is that he has not answered a single point raised by anyone who spoke from the Opposition Benches. It is a farce—a farce!
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. That is an observation, not a point of order. The hon. and learned Lady is fully aware that Members are responsible for their own remarks on the record. They have to take responsibility for that.
Robert Jenrick
Sir Roger, it is an observation but it is also incorrect, because I have already spoken about the many questions around children that have been raised.
Before I wind up my remarks, I want to address the issues regarding modern slavery that have been raised by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). All of us in Government look forward to engaging with them and learning from their unrivalled expertise and experience in this field as we ensure that the Bill meets the standards that we want it to meet. A number of hon. and right hon. Members said there was no evidential basis for taking action with regard to modern slavery. I do not think that that is fair. Let me just raise a few points of clarification. When the Modern Slavery Act was passed in 2015, the impact assessment envisaged 3,500 referrals a year, but last year there were 17,000 referrals. The most referred nationality in 2022 was citizens of Albania, a safe and developed European country, a NATO ally and, above all, a signatory to the European convention against trafficking.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to give way on this occasion.
In 2021, 73% of people who arrived on small boats and were detained for removal put forward a modern slavery claim.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for repeating the figures that have been set out previously. The fact that the number of referrals to the national referral mechanism has increased does not mean that there is abuse of the system. It means, actually, that we may just be recognising more people who are in slavery in our country. That 73% was 294 people, and of those who have had their cases looked at by the NRM, nearly 90% are found to be correct cases of slavery.
Robert Jenrick
With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not think it is correct to denigrate the concern that 73% of those people who arrived on small boats and were detained for removal put forward a modern slavery claim. I think that figure suggests that, were we to implement the scheme in the Bill—and it is absolutely essential that we do—a very large number would claim modern slavery. That would make it almost impossible for us to proceed with the scheme. The evidence, I am afraid—
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to give way. I am going to bring my remarks to a close, because I think I have spoken long enough.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Can I gently suggest to my right hon. Friend that the whole purpose of raising this issue was not to bandy the figures? There is a real disregard for some of the real figures here. He is quite right to say that the Government are concerned that there will be an exponential rise, as an alternative to coming across illegally. We should bear in mind that these people are trafficked; that is the key difference. All we are asking the Government to do is to look carefully at this and not take the power until they can see and show the evidence. After all, we have yet to see the impact of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. All I am asking of him, gently, is please just to accept that the Government will think about that before the Bill comes back on Report.
Robert Jenrick
As I have previously said to my right hon. Friend, I look forward to listening and engaging with him and like-minded colleagues. However, we come to this issue with a serious concern that there is mounting evidence of abuse of the system, and we want to ensure that the scheme we bring forward works and does the job.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way, because I am about to bring my remarks to a close.
Robert Jenrick
I will happily give way, then. I am certainly not scared of the hon. Lady.
Jess Phillips
The Immigration Minister says there is mounting evidence. Which agency does it come from? Is it Border Force? Is it the National Crime Agency? Is it local authorities? Which of the agencies that make modern slavery referrals is responsible for the most fraudulent referrals? Is it one that the Home Office manages, or is it somebody else?
Robert Jenrick
I gave way to the hon. Lady against my better judgment, and what she says is not the point. The point is that three quarters of people on the verge of being removed from this country claim modern slavery. I am afraid that is wrong, and we need to bring it to a close.
With that, I fear I have run out of time. I look forward to engaging with colleagues, particularly those I have referenced this evening. I encourage colleagues on both sides of the House to continue supporting this incredibly important piece of legislation.
Alison Thewliss
If you will allow, Sir Roger, I understand that Members can speak twice in Committee of the whole House.
What we have heard from the Minister is utterly disgraceful. He has not presented any evidence to back up his claims or to back up this legislation. We have no evidence. There is no evidence. He has not presented any evidence. He has not presented even so much as an impact assessment of this legislation, yet he and his Conservative colleagues are about to vote against all our worthy amendments without a shred of evidence to support them. [Interruption.] He did not give the evidence. With the greatest of respect to the Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) asked for evidence and he was unable, or unwilling, to present that evidence to the Committee. Which is it—unable or unwilling?
The Committee will vote to demonise, to stigmatise and to remove victims of modern slavery and trafficking from this country, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
Joanna Cherry
In addition to the lack of evidence, does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister has failed to put forward any analysis and has completely failed to engage with any of the legal analysis that I and others put forward on the problems posed by the Bill for our obligations under the ECHR, under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and under the refugee convention? Does she agree that it is a case not just of no evidence but of no analysis? In fact, it is downright ignorance and is no way to scrutinise a Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Before we go any further, I remind Members that we are in Committee. In Committee, Members are entitled to speak more than once. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is entirely in order in seeking to speak again, and the Committee has until 8.12 pm to complete this debate.
Alison Thewliss
Thank you, Sir Roger, for that clarification; I am sure that other hon. Members may also find it of interest.
A Bill would usually go upstairs for Committee stage and be scrutinised line by line. Every one of the more than 150 amendments to this Bill would have been discussed and we would have had the opportunity to vote on them all. We would have scrutinised the Minister in significant detail on each and every amendment, and each would have been properly discussed. He would have had to work to get this Bill through the House if it had gone upstairs to Committee rather than being discussed in this farce of a process today.
It is also important for those watching this at home to understand that no evidence has been taken on this Bill. Usually when we would go upstairs to a Bill Committee, we would be allowed to take evidence from experts in the field. The experts in this field have done their absolute utmost to get that evidence to us, and I am holding in front of me just some of the evidence I have received from organisations, which I have tried to present through the many amendments that I have tabled.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I now do have to call the hon. Lady to order, because she is making a general speech. She is well aware that a series of amendments is under discussion and that we are not having a general debate like on Second Reading. Perhaps she would like to return to the amendments under discussion.
Alison Thewliss
Thank you very much, Sir Roger. I would be glad to return to the topics of the Bill.
At the back of the Bill is the schedule, which may be of interest to hon. Members, as it contains a list of 57 countries, including countries from which people are known to be trafficked into sex slavery in this country. The Republic of Albania is the first on the list. We know, because the evidence supports it, that there are people—women—being trafficked to this country to be held in facilities where they are raped repeatedly by men. Those women will now not be able to ask for safety, because if they do, they will be putting themselves at risk of being deported to Rwanda. As we know, traffickers will hold that over women as a threat; this Bill is a traffickers’ charter.
I had a look through the Human Rights Watch profiles of some of the countries on the list of 57 that Ministers deem to be safe countries to which people can be removed, and I had a long conversation with Rainbow Sisters about the difficulties for lesbian and bisexual women being returned to these countries. Men are also mentioned in the list, which reads:
Gambia (in respect of men)…Ghana (in respect of men)…Kenya (in respect of men)…Liberia (in respect of men)…Malawi (in respect of men)…Nigeria (in respect of men).”
Men can be removed to these countries, but Gambia, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria and Sierra Leone—which are in this list—all outlaw same-sex relations. Ministers are not going to ask when somebody arrives in this country in a dinghy or on a plane—however they arrive—anything about the circumstances of those people. They will quite simply put them on a plane and send them back, if they can. If they cannot, those people will be in limbo in this country forever because there will be no means of removing them.
Patrick Grady
I am sure that lots of Members in the House and lots of people watching at home will want my hon. Friend to continue the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in the time that is available by the order agreed to by the House. She mentions Malawi as an example. I am proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi. Is not precisely the point that the individual circumstances of any asylum seeker who comes here need to be assessed? We cannot arbitrarily make decisions about individuals, because we do not know their individual cases. But the clauses in this Bill, and the schedule that she is talking about—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I know that this measure arouses strong opinions, but we do have a process in this House: we have to stick to the amendments. There are no amendments to the schedule and the hon. Gentleman was not referring, so far as I can see, to any amendment. In the remaining stages of this debate, can we please now confine our arguments to what is on the amendment paper, not to what is not on the amendment paper?
Alison Thewliss
Yes; my hon. Friend would be referring to amendment 191—in clause 2, page 2, line 33—which would disapply the section
“where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation”
if a person
“is removed in accordance with this section.”
This is important. We think that people’s individual rights and risks ought to be assessed by the Government, but that is not happening; the Government are not looking at individual risk.
It was interesting to find Nigeria on the list, because if LGBTQ people are returned to Nigeria, they are at significant risk. Nigeria topped a danger index of countries for LGBT people. Men would face the death penalty by stoning and women whipping and imprisonment if they were found to be LGBT. So the very real risk that we are trying to prevent through this amendment is to prevent people being returned to these countries. Jamaica is No.18 on that same danger list, but it is listed here as a country that the Home Secretary is perfectly happy to return LGBT people to, even if it is to an uncertain future where they would be outlawed from living their life and expressing the rights that they have.
Sir Roger, there are many amendments that we could speak to, because all of this Bill is an assault on human rights. We believe that human rights should belong to everybody. The Home Secretary should not get to deny them to a group of people just because of how they happened to arrive in this country. We know that there are many people who will flee very dangerous circumstances and will try to reunite with a family member who is already here—that family member might be the very last person in their family who is alive. They could have seen the rest of their family killed in front of them, and have an uncle here in the UK, but if they cannot get here by any safe or legal routes to that uncle, to that last remaining family member, as is referred to in our amendments, then how will they possibly be able to live their life?
We are sentencing people to a life in limbo—a life that they will no longer be able to live. The Government have not thought through the full consequences of the Bill. What will happen to these people who are forever left in limbo?
I wish to mention amendment 246, which says that these measures can be put forward only with the consent of the Welsh Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Government will not get legislative consent for these measures. I have a letter signed by a significant number of Members of the Scottish Parliament who do not give consent for this, who do not accept the Bill, and who do not think that it is something that they want to see. It is an affront to our human rights in Scotland. It is not the kind of country that we wish to build. I was very proud to see Humza Yousaf become our new First Minister in Scotland. Humza’s family—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Let us try again. The new First Minister of Scotland, however honourable he may be, is not part of this legislation. Will the hon. Lady please stick to the amendments that are on the Order Paper? Otherwise I shall have to ask her to take her place.
Alison Thewliss
This matter is certainly pertinent to the amendments that we have tabled. Humza’s grandparents came here as immigrants. Under this Bill, they would not be able to find their way here in the same way. That is true of many people in this country who have come here and built their lives. Some of them have ended up as legislators in this place and are drawing the ladder up behind them. Humza has made it incredibly clear how grateful he is that he has this opportunity. His grandparents could not have imagined, when they came to the UK with very little and with no money in their pockets, that they could work their way up through society and that their grandson could aspire to achieve the highest position in Scotland—to be the First Minister of Scotland.
Instead of demonising immigrants, instead of demonising the people who come to this country, instead of saying to people such as Mo Farah that they would not get to come here in the future, we should listen to the experiences of people who have come here, who have made their lives here. We should thank those people for what they have contributed. We should thank them for doing us the honour of choosing to come to this country and making their home and life here. When we do not recognise that contribution, when Ministers pull the ladder up behind them, and when they prevent people from coming here, it makes this country poorer.
Patrick Grady
Is that not the importance of my hon. Friend’s amendment 189, which we are discussing today? She humanised each amendment she tabled by giving them different names; she said that perhaps 189 should be called Tobias’s amendment, because it is specifically to exempt Afghan asylum seekers. Should not every Conservative Member who got up today to express their outrage at the way Afghan refugees and asylum seekers have been treated in this country be expected to join us in the Lobby shortly—or in about half an hour’s time, when we reach the knife—to vote for amendment 189?
Alison Thewliss
They should indeed. Amendment 189 recognises not just the plight of Afghans facing a terrible situation, but the contribution of Afghans such as Abdul Bostani, a councillor in Glasgow who came here as a refugee and now represents the city of Glasgow. It also recognises the contribution of people such as Sabir Zazai, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council, who came here as a child in the back of a lorry. Under this Bill he would be demonised and removed to Rwanda if he came here in similar circumstances.
Patrick Grady
Am I not right in thinking that Sabir Zazai has been made an Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire? That is what asylum seekers can achieve in this country if they are allowed to flourish. That is what our amendment—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Hon. Members are in danger of abusing the House. I am being scrupulously fair and trying to ensure that everything that is said remains in order. The hon. Gentleman was out of order. Now, will the hon. Member for Glasgow Central please conclude her remarks so that the Minister, if he wishes to, may respond? We will then move to the Divisions.
Alison Thewliss
With reference to amendment 189 and the contribution of Afghans, Sabir Zazai tells a story of when he was given a letter from the Home Office saying, “You are a person liable to be detained and removed.” More recently, at a celebration to mark his being awarded an OBE, he said he had received a different letter telling him he was being awarded this great honour of the British state. He said he would put those two letters on the wall next to one another, because they show that, regardless of the circumstances by which someone came to these islands, there ought to be nothing they cannot achieve.
There ought to be nothing—but this Bill pulls up the drawbridge. It makes this country smaller, it makes this country meaner and it makes this country crueller—for every Sabir Zazai, for every Abdul Bostani, for every person that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is outraged about. People can come here and make a contribution. They could live a dull, boring, ordinary life, they could be an OBE, they could be the First Minister of a country, but they have a contribution to make and they deserve to get to make that contribution without the UK Government pulling up the drawbridge and saying that they are unwelcome.
Debbie Abrahams
On amendment 189, which deals with Afghan citizens, it is striking that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs said this afternoon that there are no safe routes for Afghans to come to this country. Those Afghans have protected many of us as citizens and protected our armed forces, yet there are no safe routes for them to come here. Does the hon. Lady not think that is an absolute disgrace, given the promises made to them in 2021?
Alison Thewliss
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. I sat through many phone calls at the time with Ministers and with constituents who were terrified for their family members. Many of them still do not know whether they will get to safety at all, despite having applied through the process. They are waiting with an uncertain future in Afghanistan, where their lives are under threat, where their daughters cannot go into education and where they are pursued by the Taliban day in, day out. The point about Afghans in this Bill is particularly serious.
However, there are other nationalities of whom we could equally say that: Iraqis who helped to support British forces, and other people from other countries where Britain has a footprint. Many people come here because of the footprint Britain has had in the world, and we have a particular responsibility to those people. The Afghan interpreters in their exhibition used the phrase, “We are here because you were there.” That speaks also to the legacy of empire, the legacy of the English language and the legacy of Britain around the world. That is why people seek to come here.
I believe very firmly that we have a duty and a responsibility to people around the world. This Government renege on that responsibility. That is what the Bill is all about. My real fear is that, having seen Britain do it, other countries will pull up the drawbridge; that they will renege on their international obligations, saying, “If Britain can do it, other countries can do it, too. If Britain will not stand up for human rights, why do we need to bother? If Britain does not stand up for the refugee convention, why should we? If Britain does not stand up for the UN convention on the rights of the child, why should we bother either? Let’s get children back into slavery to be trafficked all over the place.”
This Government are not protecting children. That is why we have tabled these amendments: we seek to protect people who are being trafficked and exploited. This Government, by ignoring our amendments, seek to refuse people that protection, that human dignity, the rights that they have under our international obligations. We have those rights because of the things that we have done in the past. We should no longer have to put up with this Government. Scotland needs independence. It cannot trust this Government to look after it.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Does the Minister wish to respond?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Does the hon. Lady wish to press the amendment to a Division?
Alison Thewliss
indicated dissent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 189, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country.”—(Alison Thewliss.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
“immigration officer | section 7(12)” |
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2023 - large print - (26 Apr 2023)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 230 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Credibility of claimant: concealment of information etc.
Government new clause 20—Legal aid.
Government new clause 23—Electronic devices etc.
Government new clause 24—Decisions relating to a person’s age.
Government new clause 25—Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods.
Government new clause 26—Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights.
Government new clause 22—Interim remedies.
Government new clause 8—Report on safe and legal routes.
New clause 1—Detainees: permission to work after six months—
“(1) Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that persons detained under this Act may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(2) Permission to take up employment under regulations made under subsection (1)—
(a) must be granted if the applicant has been detained for a period of six months or more, and
(b) shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations within 6 months of the passing of the Act allowing those detained under measures in the Act to request permission to work after 6 months.
New clause 2—Arrangements for removal: pregnancy—
“The duty in section 2(1) and the power in section 3(2) do not apply in relation to a person who the Secretary of State is satisfied is pregnant.”
This new clause would exempt pregnant women and girls from the provisions about removals.
New clause 3—Effect of this Act on pregnant migrants: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on pregnant migrants.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 4—Independent child trafficking guardian—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable an independent child trafficking guardian to be appointed to assist, support and represent a child to whom subsection (2) applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a child if a relevant authority determines that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child—
(i) is, or may be, a victim of the offence of human trafficking, or
(ii) is vulnerable to becoming a victim of that offence, and
(b) no person in the United Kingdom is a person with parental rights or responsibilities in relation to the child.”
Based on a Home Affairs Select Committee recommendation (1st Report: Channel crossings, migration and asylum, HC 199, 18 July 2022), this amendment would establish an Independent Child Trafficking Guardian to support every asylum seeker under the age of 18 in their interactions with immigration and asylum processes.
New clause 5—Immigration rules since December 2020: human rights of migrants—
“(1) Regulations bringing any provisions of this Act into force may not be made before publication of a report under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of the immigration rules on the human rights of migrants since December 2020.
(3) The report under subsection (2) must include, but is not limited to, an analysis of the following areas—
(a) safe and legal routes,
(b) relocation of asylum seekers,
(c) detention,
(d) electronic tagging,
(e) legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence,
(f) the right to work, and
(g) modern slavery.”
New clause 6—Effect of this Act on victims of modern slavery: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on victims of modern slavery.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 7—Effect of this Act on the health of migrants: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on the physical and mental health of migrants.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 9—Accommodation: duty to consult—
“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3A) insert—
‘(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.
(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) applies to accommodation including hotel accommodation, military sites, and sea vessels.
(3D) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.’”
This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.
New clause 10—Expedited asylum processing—
“(1) Within 60 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from specified countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
(2) Within this section, “specified countries” are defined as those countries or territories to which a person may be removed under the Schedule to this Act.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from specified countries.
New clause 11—Accommodation: value for money—
“(1) Within 90 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) all procurement and contractual documents connected with the provision of asylum accommodation and support provided by third-party suppliers under sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(b) an updated value for money assessment for all asylum accommodation and support contracts currently in force.
(2) Any redactions to the documents provided under subsection (1) should only relate to material that is commercially sensitive.”
This new clause seeks to require the publication of key documents relating to asylum accommodation and support contracts held by private companies.
New clause 12—Border security checks—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a named individual to conduct an investigation into the effectiveness of security checks undertaken at the UK border for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act.
(2) This individual may be—
(a) the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, or
(b) another individual nominated by the Secretary of State.
(3) The first investigation conducted under this section must be completed one year after the date on which this Act is passed, with subsequent investigations completed every year thereafter.
(4) Findings of investigations conducted under this section must be published within three months of completion of the investigation.”
This new clause seeks to require an annual investigation into the effectiveness of security checks undertaken at the UK border for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act.
New clause 13—Asylum backlog: reporting requirements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Bill was published, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the steps taken and progress made toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims, within the preceding three-month period.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, “the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” means the total number of asylum applications on which an initial decision had not yet been made as of 13 December 2022.
(3) In preparing the reports required by subsection (1) above, ‘progress toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims’ may be measured with reference to—
(a) the number and proportion of applications on which an initial decision is made within six months of the submission of the application;
(b) changes to guidance for asylum caseworkers on fast-track procedures for straightforward applications;
(c) measures to improve levels of recruitment and retention of specialist asylum caseworking staff; and
(d) any other measures which the Secretary of State may see fit to refer to in the reports.”
This new clause would require regular reports from the Secretary of State on progress toward eliminating the asylum backlog.
New clause 14—Safe and legal routes: family reunion for children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act enters into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) undersection 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provision for regulation and control) to make provision for the admission of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from European Union member states to the United Kingdom for the purposes of family reunion.
(2) The rules must, as far as is practicable, include provisions in line with the rules formerly in force in the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation relating to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
This new clause seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members in the UK, in line with rules previously observed by the UK as part of the Dublin system.
New clause 15—Border security: terrorism—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom if the following conditions are met—
(a) the person meets the first condition in section 2 of this Act; and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has been involved in terrorism-related activity, as defined by section 4 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
(2) If the Secretary of State cannot proceed with removal due to legal proceedings, they must consider the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures in accordance with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before this House on activity under this section every 90 days.”
This new clause places on the Secretary of State a duty to remove suspected terrorists who have entered the country illegally, or consider the imposition of TPIMs for such individuals where removal is not possible.
New clause 16—International pilot cooperation agreement: asylum and removals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish and lay before Parliament a framework for a 12-month pilot cooperation agreement with the governments of neighbouring countries, EU Member States and relevant international organisations on—
(a) the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have made protection claims declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State;
(b) the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries, including with regards to data-sharing; and
(c) establishing capped controlled and managed safe and legal routes, including—
(i) family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members settled in the United Kingdom; and
(ii) other resettlement schemes.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) “neighbouring countries” means countries which share a maritime border with the United Kingdom;
(b) “relevant international organisations” means—
(i) Europol;
(ii) Interpol;
(iii) Frontex;
(iv) the European Union; and
(v) any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to consult with.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a framework for a new pilot co-operation agreement with the governments of neighbouring countries and relevant international organisations on asylum and removals.
New clause 18—Suspensive claims and related appeals: legal aid and legal advice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for legal aid to be available for the making of suspensive claims and related appeals under this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that legal advice is available to support persons making suspensive claims under this Act.”
This new clause seeks to ensure legal aid and legal advice are available to persons for making suspensive claims and related appeals.
New clause 21—Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: reporting requirements—
The Secretary of State must, no later than 7 June 2023 and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme safe and legal route to the United Kingdom and on progress towards the Scheme’s resettlement targets for Afghan citizens.”
This new clause would require reports from the Secretary of State for each quarter since the publication of this Bill on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, including Pathways 2 and 3.
Amendment 44, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment and Amendment 45 would require the courts to interpret the Act, so far as possible, in accordance with the UK’s international obligations contained in several international treaties.
Government amendments 111 to 113, and 77.
Amendment 45, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) So far as it is possible to do so, provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—
(a) the Convention rights,
(b) the Refugee Convention,
(c) the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking,
(d) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(e) the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.”
This amendment and Amendment 44 would require the courts to interpret the Act, so far as possible, in accordance with the UK’s international obligations contained in several international treaties.
Amendment 46, page 2, line 31, leave out clause 2.
Government amendment 89.
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert “, and—
(a) was aged 18 years or older on the date on which they entered or arrived in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is not—
(i) part of the immediate family of,
(ii) a family member as defined by section 8(2) of this Act of, or
(iii) a person who otherwise had care of,
an individual who was under the age of 18 on the date on which they entered or arrived in the United Kingdom where that individual is physically present in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would exempt children and, where they are accompanied, their immediate families from removal duty contained in clause 2 and other related duties or powers, ensuring the existing safeguarding regime in relation to these children is retained.
Amendment 47, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(10A) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—
(a) a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK;
(b) a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country;
(c) a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection;
(d) a person (L) where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if L were to be removed in accordance with this section;
(e) a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of torture;
(f) a Ukrainian citizen;
(g) a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery;
(h) a person who has family members in the United Kingdom;
(i) an person who meets the definition of an “adult at risk” in paragraph 7 of the Home Office Guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”
This amendment would exempt certain persons from the Secretary of State’s duty to remove, including children, refugees, victims of modern slavery and other vulnerable people.
Government amendment 185.
Amendment 1, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the person enters the United Kingdom from Ireland across the land border with Northern Ireland.”
This probing amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people who arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out
“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”
and insert
“where the person is an unaccompanied child or is a person who arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child”.
This amendment seeks to remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to remove a person where the person has ceased to be an unaccompanied child.
Amendment 181, page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment removes the power for the Secretary of State to remove an unaccompanied child before they turn 18.
Government amendments 174, 106 to 110, and 175.
Amendment 48, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would ensure the duty to remove under clause 2 did not apply “regardless” of a person making an application for judicial review in relation to their removal.
Amendment 49, page 5, line 2, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 2 and insert
“must be considered under the immigration rules if the person who made the claim has not been removed from the United Kingdom within a period of six months starting on the day the claim is deemed inadmissible.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider protection and human rights claims if removal had not been completed within 6 months of the declaration of inadmissibility.
Amendment 184, page 5, line 8, after “if” insert—
“the Secretary of State considers that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the claimant as a danger to national security or a threat to public safety, or”.
This amendment would prevent a person who meets the four conditions for removal in clause 2 and who is considered a threat to national security or public safety from making a protection claim or human rights claim.
Government amendment 176.
Amendment 182, in clause 5, page 5, line 36, after “child” insert—
“and where a best interest and welfare assessment carried out in the three months prior to that person turning 18 concluded it was appropriate for them to be removed”.
This amendment would add an additional requirement that a best interest and welfare assessment would need to have been carried out before the duty to remove applies to someone who was previously an unaccompanied child.
Government amendment 177.
Amendment 132, in clause 7, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) P may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer has given a notice in writing to P stating—
(a) that P meets the four conditions set out in section 2;
(b) that a safe and legal route to the United Kingdom from P’s country of origin existed which P could have followed but did not follow;
(c) that the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b) has been approved by both Houses of Parliament in the previous 12 months as safe, legal and accessible to persons originating in the relevant country; and
(d) the number of successful applications for asylum in each of the previous five years by persons following the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b).
(1B) Any determination by the Secretary of State to remove P from the United Kingdom based on information provided by the notice referred to in subsection (1A) may be subject to judicial review on the basis that the information was flawed, and the Secretary of State may not remove P from the United Kingdom while any such judicial review is ongoing.”
This amendment would prevent the Home Secretary removing a person from the United Kingdom unless and until the Secretary of State has confirmed that a safe and legal route existed but that the person nevertheless chose to follow an alternative route which resulted in them arriving in the United Kingdom without leave.
Government amendments 79 to 83.
Amendment 50, in clause 8, page 9, line 36, after “family” insert “who arrives with P and”.
This amendment would limit the power to issue removal directions to family members, to those family members who arrived with the person being removed.
Government amendments 90, 91 and 139.
Amendment 51, page 13, line 10, leave out clause 11.
Government amendments 140, 134, 141, 142 and 135.
Amendment 2, in clause 11, page 14, line 46, at end insert—
“(2H) Sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2G) above do not apply to any person who—
(a) entered the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child;
(b) has at least one dependant child; or
(c) is a pregnant woman.”
This amendment would prevent an immigration officer’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependant children or pregnant women.
Government amendments 143 to 145, 136, 146, 147, 137 and 148.
Amendment 3, page 17, line 15, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
“(11) Subsections (5) to (10) above do not apply to any person who—
(a) entered the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child;
(b) has at least one dependant child; or
(c) is a pregnant woman.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependant children or pregnant women.
Amendment 52, page 17, line 18, leave out clause 12.
Government amendments 149, 86, 150, 87, 151 to 157, 85, 88, 84, and 158 to 160.
Amendment 53, page 22, line 30, leave out clause 15.
Amendment 183, in clause 15, page 22, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) Subject to subsections (6) to (8), an unaccompanied child may not be placed in, or once placed in, may not be kept in, accommodation provided or arranged under subsection (1) that has the purpose of restricting liberty (“secure accommodation”) unless it appears—
(a) that the child is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation; and
(b) if they abscond, they are likely to suffer significant harm.
(6) A child may not be kept in secure accommodation for a period of more than 72 hours without the authority of the court.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), a court may authorise that a child may be kept in secure accommodation for a maximum period of 3 months.
(8) A court may from time to time authorise that a child may be kept in secure accommodation for a further period not exceeding six months at any one time.
(9) In this section, “significant harm” includes, but is not limited to, a high likelihood that the child will be at risk of trafficking or exploitation.”
This amendment would clarify the circumstances under which an unaccompanied child accommodated by the Home Office, rather than a local authority, can be accommodated in secure accommodation. It would require the child to be at risk of harm if they absconded, including at risk of being trafficked or exploited.
Amendment 7, page 23, line 1, leave out clause 16.
Government amendments 124 to 131.
Amendment 54, in clause 19, page 24, line 27, at end insert—
“(a) in the case of Wales, with the consent of Senedd Cymru,
(b) in the case of Scotland, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and
(c) in the case of Northern Ireland, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is only required if the Northern Ireland Executive has been formed.”
This amendment would ensure provisions in relation to unaccompanied migrant children could not be extended to devolved nations without the consent of the devolved legislatures, as appropriate.
Amendment 55, in clause 21, page 25, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period, or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections (a reflection period and leave to remain) to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 12, page 25, line 22, after “decision”” insert—
“, unless the decision relates to the person being a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Amendment 4, page 25, line 32, at end insert “either—
(aa) the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom; or”
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them being granted limited leave to remain.
Amendment 16, page 26, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to any person who is a national of a state which—
(a) has not ratified the relevant international legal agreements; or
(b) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe may not be effectively enforcing its obligations under the relevant international legal agreements; or
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe may not be able or willing to prevent the person from becoming a victim of slavery and human trafficking upon their return to that country.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), “relevant international legal agreements” means—
(a) ILO Conventions 29 and 105 on Forced Labour;
(b) the European Convention on Human Rights;
(c) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
(d) the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking;
(e) any other relevant agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
(3C) In determining whether paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3A) apply, the Secretary of State must consult with, and pay due regard to the views of, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.”
This amendment stipulates that the duty to remove victims of modern slavery does not apply to nationals of countries which have not ratified international agreements relating to human trafficking, or which the Secretary of State has reason to believe may not be effectively enforcing its obligations under those agreements.
Government amendment 95.
Amendment 56, page 26, line 25, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This amendment seeks to protect those victims of trafficking and slavery granted leave to remain under s65(2) of the Nationality and Borders Act from the power of the Secretary of State to revoke that in certain circumstances.
Amendment 57, in clause 22, page 27, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 22 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in England and Wales to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 13, page 27, line 14, after “person” insert—
“, unless the decision relates to the person being a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Amendment 58, in clause 23, page 27, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 23 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in Scotland to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 14, page 27, line 28, at end insert—
“unless the person is a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 59, in clause 24, page 29, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 24 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in Northern Ireland to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 15, page 29, line 11, at end insert—
“unless the person is a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Government amendments 97, 114 to 119, 161, 162, 104, 105, 122, 92 and 163.
Amendment 8, in clause 30, page 35, line 31, leave out “has ever met” and insert— “is aged 18 or over at the time of entry into the United Kingdom and meets”.
This amendment seeks to provide an exemption from the ban on obtaining citizenship for family members of people who are subject to the “duty to remove” if they were either born in the UK or arrived in the UK as a child.
Government amendments 164 to 166.
Amendment 62, in clause 31, page 36, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d).
This amendment and amendments 63 to 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 167.
Amendment 63, page 37, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).
This amendment and amendments 62, 64 and 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 168.
Amendment 64, in clause 32, page 37, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
This amendment and amendments 62, 63 and 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 169.
Amendment 65, page 37, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment and amendments 62 to 64 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Amendment 66, page 37, line 39, leave out clause 33.
Amendment 67, page 38, line 1, leave out clause 34.
Government amendments 123, 170, 171, and 33 to 35.
Amendment 68, in clause 37, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert “—
(a) a protection claim
(b) a human rights claim, or
(c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that consideration of protection claims, human rights claims and slavery and trafficking cases would suspend removal under clause 45.
Government amendments 172, 173, and 36 to 43.
Amendment 69, in clause 43, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment seeks to reinstate onward rights of appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal under this clause.
Amendment 70, in clause 44, page 46, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment seeks to reinstate onward rights of appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal under this clause.
Government amendments 18 to 32, and 186.
Amendment 71, in clause 52, page 53, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment would ensure rules on inadmissibility of certain asylum claims were not extended to human rights claims.
Amendment 72, page 53, leave out line 33.
Amendment 75, in clause 53, page 55, line 11, leave out from “must” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—
“within six months of this Act coming into force, secure a resolution from both Houses of Parliament on a target for the number of people entering the United Kingdom each year over the next three years using safe and legal routes, and further resolutions for future years no later than 18 months before the relevant years begin.”
This amendment seeks to enhance Parliament’s role in determining a target number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 76, page 55, line 15, after “authorities” insert—
“(aa) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
(ab) the devolved governments,
(ac) the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons,”
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of consultees on setting the target for the number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Government amendment 11.
Amendment 9, page 55, line 37, at end insert—
““persons” means only individuals aged 18 or over on the day of entry into the United Kingdom;”
This amendment would exclude children from the annual cap on number of entrants.
Government amendments 178, 98 to 100, 120, 187, 133, 179, 180, 93 and 94.
Amendment 10, in clause 59, page 58, line 27, at end insert—
“but see section (Immigration rules since December 2020: human rights of migrants).”
This amendment is consequential on NC5.
Government amendments 103, 138, 101, 102, 121 and 188.
Amendment 73, page 59, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 23 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, provided that the Scottish Parliament has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
This amendment would require Scottish Parliament consent before disapplication of its legislation making provision for support for modern slavery and trafficking victims in Scotland could come into force.
Amendment 74, page 59, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 24 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, provided that, if a Northern Ireland Executive has been formed, the Northern Ireland Assembly has previously indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
This amendment would require Northern Ireland Assembly consent before disapplication of its legislation making provision for support for modern slavery and trafficking victims in Northern Ireland could come into force.
Government amendment 189.
Government new schedule 1—Electronic devices etc.
Government amendment 78.
Robert Jenrick
On behalf of the Home Office, I pay tribute to those Border Force officers who nobly volunteered to serve in Sudan this week, to support British nationals and others as they are processed and swiftly returned to the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary and I praise their professionalism and their sense of service and duty.
Before I address the key Government amendments, it is worth reminding the House of why the Government introduced this vital Bill. A sovereign state must have control of its borders. Quite properly, we have an immigration system that determines who can come to the UK lawfully, whether to visit, to study, to work or for other legitimate reasons. Our immigration and asylum system also makes generous provision in providing sanctuary for people seeking protection. Indeed, we have offered such protection, in different ways, to nearly half a million people since 2015.
But the people of this country are rightly frustrated if a self-selected group of individuals can circumvent those controls by paying people smugglers to ferry them across the channel on a small boat. Why would someone apply to come to this country for employment if they can instead arrive on a small boat, claim asylum and then, as one amendment suggests, acquire the right to work here after 12 months?
Illegal migration undermines the integrity of our immigration system. It puts unsustainable pressure on our housing, health, education and welfare services, and it undermines public confidence in our democratic processes and the rule of law. That is why we want to stop the boats and secure our borders, and this Bill is dedicated to that goal. It will send a clear message that people who enter the United Kingdom illegally will not be able to build a life here. Instead, they are liable to be detained, and they will be removed either back to their home country, if it is safe to do so, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Minister really asking the House to believe that such an amendment would act as a pull factor? Is he saying that people will come here because of the possibility that we might pass an amendment giving asylum seekers the right to work? If that is his case, it is particularly poor even by his standards.
Robert Jenrick
It is a pull factor to the UK that individuals can work in our grey economy, which is a cause of serious concern. If we were to add an additional pull factor, by enabling people to work sooner, it would be yet another reason for people to choose to come to this country. I will return to that point in responding to other questions before the House today.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way at the moment.
The vast majority of people arriving on small boats come from an obvious place of safety—France—with a fully functioning asylum system, so they are choosing to make that additional crossing. They are essentially asylum shoppers, even if they originally come from a place of danger, and they are doing that because they believe the United Kingdom is a better place to make their claim and to build a future. Their ability to work is obviously part of that calculation, as our north European counterparts frequently say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress, and I will return to those Members who want to intervene.
It is important that we get the Bill right. I understand the complexity of the legal and operational challenges we face. In enacting this legislation, we must be alert to those who seek to use every possible tactic to thwart and frustrate its operation. We have seen that with our groundbreaking partnership with Rwanda, and we will see it again with this Bill.
Since its introduction, we have continued to examine how to make the Bill as robust as possible, as well as reflecting on the debates in Committee last month. The Government amendments before the House today reflect that further work and consideration. We have repeatedly made it clear that, as we reduce the number of illegal immigrants arriving on small boats and through other forms of clandestine entry, we will free up capacity for more people to come to this country through safe and legal routes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We know that, in 2021, 71% of asylum claims were successful, and that a further 47% were successful on appeal. This is not illegal migration. If those claims were successful, why are we not allowing people to work? Is the Minister trying to make it illegal for anyone to come in, thereby reducing our standing on the rule of law?
Robert Jenrick
There are a number of points there. There is a legitimate point of view, as I have said on a number of occasions, that those seeking a determination should have the right to work, but we disagree, because we want to reduce the pull factors to the UK, not add to them. As I have said throughout my time in this role, deterrence has to be suffused throughout every aspect of our approach. Creating a situation where individuals could quickly access the UK labour market is not sensible if we want to reduce the number of people coming here in the first place.
Let me return to the issue of safe and legal routes—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make my remarks on this and then I will come to the hon. Gentleman. That issue is clearly of interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), with whom I have had a number of significant conversations in recent weeks. He is keen to see early progress on this front. The Government accept the need for greater clarity about the safe and legal routes available to those seeking refuge in the UK, while reiterating that it is simply not feasible for this country to accept all those who may seek to come here. That is why I am happy to commend to the House his new clause 8 and amendment 11, which would, first, require the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament, within six months of Royal Assent, a report detailing existing and proposed additional safe and legal routes for those in need of protection. We will aim to implement the proposed new routes as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024. Secondly, the amendments would require the Home Secretary to commence the consultation on the annual number of people to be admitted through safe and legal routes within three months of Royal Assent.
Patrick Grady
The Prime Minister could not answer this earlier, so perhaps the Immigration Minister can: what safe and legal route is available today for a young person in Sudan who wants to flee the violence there and come to the UK?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to answer that question. We have consistently said that those seeking sanctuary should do so in the first safe country. On the developing situation in Sudan, the United Nations is operating in most, if not all, of the countries surrounding Sudan. Last week, I met the assistant commissioner at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when we discussed exactly this point. The best advice clearly would be for individuals to present to the UNHCR. The UK, like many countries, works closely with the UNHCR and we already operate safe and legal routes in partnership with it. That safe and legal route is available today. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, let me say that the UK is the fourth largest recipient in the world of individuals through routes operated by the UNHCR. So his central contention that the UK is somehow not a generous and compassionate country and that we are not working with organisations such as the UNHCR in this regard is factually incorrect. We are working with them closely.
In addition, we have a family reunion scheme, which has enabled more than 50,000 refugees to come to the UK in recent years and to meet up with their family members who have also sought refuge in the UK as refugees. That scheme is available all over the world. So if the young person in the hon. Gentleman’s example had family in the UK, that individual could come here through the family reunion scheme. In addition, the point made in the Bill is that we will expand those safe and legal routes over the course of the next 12 months or so, so that even more individuals can make use of them.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister is in danger of taking the UNHCR’s name in vain, because it has issued a statement that says:
“UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the U.K. There is no asylum visa or ‘queue’ for the United Kingdom.”
Would he like to correct the record?
Robert Jenrick
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, I met the assistant commissioner of the UNHCR and had this conversation directly with her. So whatever the hon. Lady may be quoting from her iPhone, I would prefer to take at face value what I have heard in discussion with the assistant commissioner. The point is that the UNHCR selects individuals who have registered with it and to whom it has given refugee status to go to other countries on existing safe and legal routes. It currently has discretion as to who it puts in the direction of the United Kingdom. That was a choice made when the UK established that scheme, because the then Conservative Government took the perfectly legitimate view that we would offer complete discretion to the United Nations to select the people it felt were the most vulnerable in the world and help them to come to the UK. We have already opened the conversation with the UN on how we will establish a new safe and legal route, and there are a range of options on how we might configure that.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I wonder if I might assist my right hon. Friend on this issue of the UNHCR, because I too have seen that quote. As far as I can see, the UNHCR is saying that somebody cannot just turn up at the UNHCR and say, “I want to go and have asylum in the UK.” The UK has an arrangement with the UNHCR whereby we say that we will take a certain number of refugees or asylum seekers, and we ask it please to identify those who are most vulnerable and therefore those who should be coming under our scheme. There is not that incompatibility that is being suggested.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. Of course, how we structure any safe and legal route, whether we work with the UN or indeed any other organisation, is a choice for the UK. It is not impossible for the UK to say that we wish to take individuals from particular countries or regions, but the choice made in the recent past, which as I say, was a perfectly valid one, was to give that discretion to the experts at the UNHCR, rather than to fetter their discretion.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am not right honourable, but I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let me take him back to the issue of people in Sudan at the moment, because he referred to brave officials from his Department who are out there. What is the advice being given where a family member has children under the age of 18, who, for all sorts of complicated reasons at the moment, may not be properly documented given the situation in Sudan? Will they be able to get on an aeroplane? Will they end up with some kind of determination having to be made when they get to Cyprus? What will be the situation?
Robert Jenrick
So far, we have been calling individuals and families forward in order of priority; those in Sudan should check the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s published advice to see that. There is discretion for Border Force officers where British passport holders, or those who have leave to enter the UK, present with minors and there is credible evidence that those children are their own, and this is so as to ensure that the family unit stays together wherever possible. That is the right approach. We have worked closely with Border Force to ensure that the group of officers we have in Sudan have the correct guidelines to operate that policy. To the best of my knowledge, we have not encountered any issues, but of course we are getting regular updates to ensure that that is functioning properly.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I wish to draw the House’s attention to another safe and legal route that exists at the moment, the community sponsorship arrangement, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Home Secretary. It enables communities to welcome refugees from around the world. Does he agree that it is a good model and that we should expand it in future?
Robert Jenrick
I do, and I commend that arrangement wholeheartedly. I took part in what is, in one sense, a successor to that scheme, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and it was an incredibly rewarding experience for me and my family. The principle at the heart of that is that it is not purely a matter for the state to provide support; individuals, groups, churches, synagogues and mosques might want to come forward to gather support and funding to meet the state halfway and assist those people to come to the UK. That scheme is available. We would like more people to take part in it. It is exactly the sort of scheme that could be considered alongside the future expansion of safe and legal routes.
Robert Jenrick
If I may, I will make some more progress, but I would be pleased to revert to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in a moment.
Let me turn to the other issue that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised in Committee, which is that of unaccompanied children. Again, we have listened to the points that he and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised. As I have said repeatedly, this is a morally complex issue. There are no simple answers and each has trade-offs. Our primary concern must be the welfare of children, both here and abroad. We need to ensure that the UK does not become a destination that is specifically targeted by people smugglers specialising in children and families.
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress.
I am also acutely concerned that we balance that with the very real safeguarding risks posed by young adults pretending to be children. This is not a theoretical issue; it is one that we see every day unfortunately. Today, a very large number of young adults do pose as children. In fact, even with our current method of age assessment, around 50% of those people who are assessed are ultimately determined to be adults. We have seen some very serious and concerning incidents in recent months. There are few more so than that raised in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) when one of his constituents, Thomas Roberts, was murdered by an individual who had entered the UK posing as a minor and, during his time in the UK, had been in education, in the loving care of foster parents and in other settings in which he was in close proximity to genuine children.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister has raised the awful case of Thomas Roberts. I have asked him repeatedly why it was not known that the murderer was wanted for murder in Serbia and why it was also not known that he had already been turned down for asylum in another European country. Why did the authorities and Border Force not know that information?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to an Adjournment debate on this issue, I have commissioned a review of all of the circumstances surrounding that most serious case so that we can understand the multiple failures that may have happened while that individual has been in the United Kingdom and what lessons we need to learn. Separate to that, I have taken further steps to enhance the security checks that are conducted when individuals arrive at the Western Jet Foil and at Manston, aided by the change in the law that I made earlier in the year so that we have, in extremis, up to 96 hours in which to hold individuals in that setting while we conduct those security checks. I am working closely with the security services, police and the National Crime Agency in that regard. If there are other things that we need to do, we will do them, and if there are other databases that we should be arguing for access to we will certainly do so, because it is critical that we secure our borders in this regard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress if I may.
We have been clear that the power to remove unaccompanied children would be exercised only in very limited circumstances: principally for the purposes of effecting a family reunion or to return someone to their safe country of origin. Government amendment 174 makes this clear in the Bill while futureproofing the Bill against the risk that the people smugglers will seek to endanger more young lives and break up more families by loading yet more unaccompanied children on to the small boats.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On the face of it, I, too, welcome Government amendment 174 on the limitations to the removal of children and the prescription that is put within it. However, my right hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that, further down in that amendment, it sets out that the Home Secretary can pass regulations to set out any other circumstances at a later date. Is he referring to changes in the way that people smugglers may operate? Will this be an affirmative procedure in Parliament, and what sort of circumstances does he anticipate that we may be dealing with?
Robert Jenrick
What we do know is that this situation is fast moving and that the people smugglers are individuals and businesses that will stop at nothing and stoop to any low. We want to retain a degree of discretion, of course accountable to Parliament, and we would ensure that it is an affirmative procedure, giving Parliament at least an opportunity to debate it should there be concerns with the approach of any Home Secretary. But let me be clear that the Government’s position is that we see the use of this power only for those two very limited, but understandable and sensible, suggestions. They are two routes that are used today judiciously. We do—although it is very hard to do—seek to reunify unaccompanied minors with their family members, and succeed in a small number of cases. We also remove minors from the UK back home to safe countries, always making sure that social services or appropriate authorities are awaiting them on their return. Those things happen today and we want to see that they continue and, if anything, that we take further advantage of them.
Wera Hobhouse
Nobody in this House would disagree that we need to stop the people smugglers, but I worry that the Government focus too much on the people smugglers, rather than on the damage that is caused to vulnerable children who are already traumatised. The whole process that the Government are proposing is retraumatising already deeply traumatised young people.
Robert Jenrick
On the broader point, let me reassure the hon. Member that, as a parent, I, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister gave these questions a great deal of thought and our motivation was the best interests of children. We do not want to see children put into dinghies and their lives placed in danger. When we do see that, it is a harrowing experience that lives with us. We have to take these steps to ensure that, when we operationalise the scheme at the heart of the Bill, the UK is not then targeted by people smugglers specialising in families and children.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On the question of children, I think everyone agrees with the compassionate view that the Minister has expressed but, in Kent, we take and look after the majority of unaccompanied children. Does he agree that the safest place for those children is in the care of the French authorities and not on those boats in the first place, and how will the Bill assist with that?
Robert Jenrick
The key element at the heart of the Bill is deterrence. We want to deter individuals, families or adults from going into these dinghies, putting themselves at the behest of people smugglers. Ultimately, that is the way that we protect children. If we allow this issue to escalate—that is not the intention of those who oppose the Bill, but it is the logical conclusion—it will simply see more children placed into these boats and we have to stop that. That is what we are setting out to do here. As my hon. Friend has raised the point, I would praise the authorities in Kent, which have gone above and beyond to support young people. I have recently visited the facilities there.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I should make more progress.
Apsana Begum
Does the Minister agree that it is deeply harrowing to learn of pregnant women arriving in the UK on these boats and that perhaps they should be exempt from the provisions on removals in the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
I do not want to see pregnant women placed in a difficult or compromising position. The scheme is structured in such a way that a suspensive claim can be brought where there is serious or irreversible harm, which, in most cases, is physical harm, that would prevent an individual from being placed on a flight either back home to their own country, if it is a safe place, or to a safe third country like Rwanda. The usual fitness to fly procedures will apply. Therefore, a pregnant woman would not be placed on a flight to Rwanda or elsewhere unless it was safe to do so. There are long-standing conventions of practice on how we would make that judgment.
On the issue of detention of unaccompanied children, I understand the concerns that a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised about the prolonged detention of children without the authority of a court. I thank those Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, for their very constructive engagement with us on that and other matters. As a result of those discussions, we have introduced Government amendments 134 and 136 to enable a time limit to be placed on the detention of an unaccompanied child where the detention is for the purposes of removal.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s and other hon. Members’ concerns—indeed I share them. I commit to working with him and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), with whom I have had a number of conversations, to set out the new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without the authority of the court and what appropriate support should be provided within detention, recognising the obligations under the Children Act 1989, an important piece of legislation.
I can also confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and others that it is our intention that, where there is no age dispute, children are not detained for any longer than is absolutely necessary, with particular regard to the risk of absconding and suffering significant harm. I trust that those amendments and commitments will assuage the concerns that he raised in Committee and that he will not feel the need to press his amendment 138 on this issue.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As the Minister says, amendments 134 and 136 bring in the opportunity to introduce regulations for setting time limits. In the past, when there has been a contentious issue such as this across the House, it has often been the practice for the Government to bring forward draft regulations before the end of the Bill’s passage through both Houses. Can he give us an assurance that we will be able to see the detail of what the Government are thinking?
Robert Jenrick
I am not able to give that assurance today, but I will give it careful consideration and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. We must ensure that we give this careful consideration and get these difficult judgments right, and that we learn the lessons from when children have been detained in the recent past. I know he is very aware of that and through his constituency duties has been very involved with the immigration removal centre in his constituency.
We want to ensure that we only detain children in the most limited circumstances and in the right forms of accommodation, with the correct scrutiny and accountability. I have recently spoken with the Children’s Commissioner and asked her to assist us and give us her expert opinion in the further policy development that we intend to do. I am keen to work with any hon. Member across the House who has expertise to bring to bear on the issue.
I turn now to the question raised in Committee regarding modern slavery and to amendment 4 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), supported by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). They are both international champions of this issue and have played critical roles in establishing the UK as a leading force in modern slavery prevention and the protection of those who have proven to be victims. This issue of modern slavery is also addressed in amendments 12 and 16 in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and amendments 73 and 74 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
The Bill is intended to stop the boats. People are risking their lives by making dangerous crossings and putting unprecedented pressure on our public services. Amending these clauses to create exemptions that could lead to abuse of modern slavery protections, and risk undermining the very purpose of the Bill, is something that we must think very carefully about.
I understand, of course, that in the preparation of their amendments my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maidenhead, and others, have thought in particular about how we can prevent individuals who have been in the UK for a sustained period from being exploited by human traffickers, or, if they are already being exploited, from being deterred from escaping that modern slavery, or raising concerns with civil society or law enforcement bodies. Those are serious issues, and I want to take them forward with my right hon. Friends, listening to their unrivalled expertise through the passage of the Bill, to see whether there are ways we can address and assuage their concerns. For that reason, we will look at what more we can do to provide additional protections to individuals who have suffered exploitation in the UK.
I remind my right hon. Friends that the modern slavery provisions in the Bill are time-limited, recognising the exceptional circumstances we currently face in respect of the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. Unless renewed, the provisions will expire two years after commencement. They take advantage of an express provision within the European convention on action against trafficking, which foresaw that there might be circumstances in which there was a sufficient risk to public disorder, or a crisis that merited taking this kind of action. The Government would argue that we are in that moment now, and for that reason we need to apply that limited exemption.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister has rightly singled out two of my colleagues with flattery to try to help him—but he did not single me out, so he is going to get it in the neck. Suppose a 16-year-old in Moldova is told that she has a job in a restaurant in Belfast. She is provided with a Romanian passport. She comes across here on an aeroplane, with false documents, but when she gets to Belfast, she does not get a job. She is put in a terraced house and forced into prostitution; the lock is on the outside of the bedroom and she is effectively repeatedly raped. The police break that ring and rescue her. What happens then? At the moment, she gets protection, she is looked after and she helps with the prosecution. This Bill changes that. Can the Minister please tell me why? This person has been trafficked, not on a small boat, and exploited here. Why can he not accept the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)? It seems to me that there is no risk. I want his Bill to succeed, but this is—
Robert Jenrick
I apologise to my hon. Friend for not praising his long-standing interest in this issue and the very good conversation that he and I had recently, in which he made exactly the point that he has just made on the Floor of the House. We are concerned about those kinds of cases and about those individuals who are exploited within the United Kingdom, but we are keen to ensure that that is not inadvertently turned into a loophole that would undermine the broader scheme.
One of the existing protections within the Bill for an individual such as the one my hon. Friend mentions is the provision that, if someone is co-operating with a police investigation, the duty to remove will be suspended. Therefore, if somebody was in exactly the position he described, they should of course go to the law enforcement authorities. At that point, the safeguard that we put in the Bill would apply and they would not be removed from the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will speak to my amendment shortly, I am sure, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and others, but I want to raise one particular point. The Minister used the word “inadvertently”, but I wonder whether Government amendment 95 is inadvertent when it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to decide whether somebody is genuinely giving evidence to the police. I am also puzzled by the wording of proposed new subsection (5A) to clause 21, that
“the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State”,
which is the same person, I think. I am not sure how that achieves the desire to be balanced on this.
Robert Jenrick
That provision ensures that where an individual has presented to the authorities and the police may have opened an investigation, the police would then make a submission to the Home Secretary, who would then decide whether that was sufficiently advanced for the provisions in the Bill to apply. That is a sensible safeguard, but this is exactly the sort of issue on which I am happy to continue working with my right hon. Friend.
Mrs May
Picking up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I think that we were all surprised to see Government amendment 95, because it says not that the police can make an application to the Secretary of State, with a nice order and so on, but that the Secretary of State “must assume” that the person cannot stay in the United Kingdom unless there are “compelling circumstances”—determined initially and endorsed by the Secretary of State—for them to stay.
Robert Jenrick
That is the procedure that I have just outlined. Police forces would apply to the Secretary of State, who would then make the determination that my right hon. Friend describes. That is an important safeguard to ensure that there is rigour on this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I will make some progress because this is a short debate and it is important that we enable people to make—[Interruption.] Well, it was only a few moments ago that SNP Members were saying that the debate was too short. I gently remind them that in both days in Committee we ran out of speakers, including on the SNP Benches.
Robert Jenrick
I really should make progress because I worry that we will run out of time.
I will say a few words in response to new clause 15 and on the issue of suspected terrorists. I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s belated, albeit limited, endorsement of the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of persons who enter the UK unlawfully—presumably including removal to Rwanda. That duty applies across the board, save in the case of unaccompanied children, so in our opinion, new clause 15 is, again, unnecessary. Protecting the public is the Government’s first priority, and the Bill includes powers to detain illegal entrants and, where necessary, release a person on immigration bail. There are existing powers to apply terrorism prevention and investigation measures where appropriate. They give the security service and the police powerful measures to help manage the risk of terrorism. They are, of course, considered case by case and used as a last resort if prosecution or deportation are not possible. We therefore judge that new clause 15 does not add anything to the Bill’s provisions or to existing counter-terrorism powers.
I have more sympathy for amendment 184, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), in that she is seeking to make a constructive contribution to the debate on how we manage the clear risk posed by terrorism. It is already the case that all asylum claims must be declared inadmissible under the Bill. That is the case for any human rights claim in respect of a person’s home country. Where we are seeking to remove someone to a safe third country, it is right that they should be able to challenge that removal where they face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm—although that is a very limited ground—and the Bill provides for that, but we will always seek to effect removal as soon as possible, particularly where somebody poses a real risk of harm to the British public. I can assure my hon. Friend that, should removal be delayed, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that the public is properly protected. She is one of the foremost Members of this House in issues related to tackling small boat arrivals, owing, of course, to the particular concerns of her Dover constituents. I am grateful to her for tabling amendment 184, and I look forward to continued work with her as we work through these challenges.
A number of other Government amendments address the concerns raised in Committee by, among others, my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who rightly want to ensure that the scheme provided for in the Bill is as robust as possible and not open to exploitation and abuse by those who seek to frustrate removals.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would like to reciprocate, if I may. In my 39 years in the House, I had not had an opportunity of the kind that has been offered by the Government on this occasion for a good, proper and robust but none the less effective dialogue on these incredibly important matters. I put on record my thanks to the Government for that.
Robert Jenrick
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. We value his expertise, knowledge and commitment on this issue. He has made the Bill better, stronger and more likely to succeed in our objective, which is to stop the boats and restore the public’s confidence.
It has always been our intention that the only claims that could delay removal would be the factual suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims provided for in the Bill. All other legal challenges—be they rights-based or other claims—would be non-suspensive. New clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, makes it crystal clear not only that any judicial reviews will be non-suspensive, but that it will not be open to the Court to grant interim remedies that have the effect of blocking removals pending a substantive decision on a judicial review.
In a similar vein, new clause 24 makes it clear that any legal challenges relating to a decision about a person’s age are also non-suspensive. Through new clause 25, we are taking a power to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which it can be assumed that someone who refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment is an adult. I can assure the House that we will make such regulations only once we are satisfied that the scientific models are sufficiently accurate so that applying an automatic assumption will be compatible with the European convention on human rights. On that question, I thank in particular of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who has worked closely with the Government to achieve our shared objective.
On interim relief, we are replacing the marker clause relating to interim measures indicated by the Strasbourg Court. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated on Second Reading, the Strasbourg Court is itself carrying out a review of the rule 39 process at the encouragement of a number of member states, including us. The former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who was then Lord Chancellor, and the current Attorney General, have had constructive discussions with the Court about reform, including on rule 39. However, we can and should do more.
New clause 26 will confer on the Home Secretary or any other Minister of the Crown a discretion, to be exercised personally, to suspend the duty to remove a person where an interim measure has been indicated on an individual case. The new clause sets out a non-exhaustive list of considerations to which the Minister may have regard when considering the exercise of such a discretion in that case. The Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that personal discretion. The Government expect that the Minister will carefully consider the UK’s international obligations when deciding whether to disapply the duty.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It seems to me that new clause 26 effectively introduces a presumption that the UK Government will breach international law when interim measures are handed down by the Court in Strasbourg. The Home Secretary has already said on the face of the Bill that she cannot certify that it is compatible with the ECHR, but she has declined to give evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to assist our legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Can the Minister explain to the House why the Home Secretary is so reluctant to come to the Joint Committee to justify her admission that the Bill is not compatible with the ECHR?
Robert Jenrick
The Government believe that the Bill is compatible. We believe there are strong arguments, and of course there will be legal debate, but were any aspect of the Bill to be challenged, we look forward to defending it robustly. We take our treaty obligations—
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. and learned Lady a second time, if she does not mind. We have been very clear that we take our treaty obligations seriously. In respect of the ministerial discretion in the clause, the Home Secretary, or whichever Minister of the Crown exercised that discretion, would of course take those obligations seriously and judge the individual case.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend not in effect asking the House to give legislative sanction to at least the possibility that a Minister of the Crown will deliberately disobey this country’s international law obligations? Is not that really the effect of what is being asked?
Robert Jenrick
No. As I have already said, we take our treaty obligations very seriously and the Minister who exercises this discretion would have to do so. This discretion would be exercised highly judiciously and would ultimately be judged on the facts and be very fact-dependent.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Lady. I will give way one last time to my right hon. and learned Friend; then I must make some progress.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
A Minister always has the ability to ignore an indication under rule 39, because there is no obligation under the convention for the Government to heed one—it is an indication. Why, then, does it need legislation if what is not in fact being asked is that this House should approve, quite consciously and deliberately, a deliberate breach of our obligations under the convention? That is the truth. The Minister could ignore an indication and it would be a matter between states, but the provision invites this House to give legislative authority to the Minister who does that, if she chooses to ignore it. Is that not the position?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. and learned Friend is correct in saying that rule 39 indications are just that, and that there are circumstances in which Ministers have chosen not to apply them—a small number of circumstances, but a number. The clause does not mandate a Minister to ignore rule 39 indications; it says clearly, to ensure that there is no doubt whatsoever, that the Minister has the discretion to do so. It gives a non-exhaustive list of reasons that they should consider, and in doing so they would clearly, as I have said on a number of occasions, take their treaty obligations very seriously.
Let me move on. As I have said, the Bill provides for two kinds of suspensive claims and sets out a fair but rigorous timetable for the submission of any claims, their determination by the Home Office, and any appeals. It is important that those who receive a removal notice should be able to receive appropriate legal advice to help them to navigate this process; accordingly, new clause 20 makes provision for legal aid. I trust that this new clause at least will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, given that it covers similar ground to her new clause 18. The provision of legal aid will reduce the opportunities for challenges and speed up removals.
On serious harm suspensive claims, new clause 17 augments the existing provisions in clause 38, which enables regulations to be made about the meaning of serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of the Bill. We consider it important, and indeed helpful to the courts, to provide them with guidance as to what does or does not amount to serious and irreversible harm, albeit that ultimately the judgment will be for the upper tribunal, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. New clause 17 also makes it clear that the serious and irreversible harm must be “imminent and foreseeable”, which aligns the test in the Bill much more closely with Strasbourg practice.
Amendments 114 to 119 relate to foreign national offenders. In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, we legislated to disapply certain modern slavery protections to FNOs who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and to certain other categories of persons who present a risk to public order. The amendments introduce a statutory presumption that the public order disqualification applies to FNOs who have been given an immediate custodial sentence of any length.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way; I will draw my remarks to a close.
I will not detain the House by detailing the other Government amendments, which I have summarised in a letter—
Robert Jenrick
If Members do not mind, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether he can comment on a matter that has been brought to my attention while he has been on his feet. Greater Manchester police has released the following urgent update about Programme Challenger, which is the programme the force operates for dealing with serious and organised crime:
“As a result of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, changes came in to effect in February 2023 which have had an immediate impact on potential victims. This has seen positive first stage decisions drop from around 95% of all submissions to 18% of submissions between February 20th and March 31st. This means that 4 in 5 potential victims are not able to access immediate support from the national modern slavery and human trafficking victim care providers.”
Is my right hon. Friend as worried about that as I am? If he is not worried, is it because he feels that the 2022 Act is already having an impact? In which case, why does he need modern slavery provisions in this Bill?
Robert Jenrick
It is difficult for me to comment on remarks that are read out that I have had no sight of; frankly, my right hon. Friend would not have done so either when she was a Home Office Minister. She and I have a disagreement on the current impact of modern slavery on our system, but to me the evidence is very clear that unfortunately—this was never the intention of the framework that was created—there is significant abuse. We see that in particular in the number of individuals who are coming forward with modern slavery claims in the detained estate when we seek to remove them from the country. Such last-minute claims currently account for 70% of individuals. I am afraid that, among other evidence, that shows that we have a serious problem and we have to take action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I am going to draw my remarks to a close now, because all Members want others to have an opportunity to speak.
Robert Jenrick
I am not giving way, because time is very limited.
I have summarised the other Government amendments, which are more detailed and technical in nature, in a letter to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. I stand ready to address any particular points in my winding-up speech, if necessary. For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to the contributions of other Members. I will respond to as many of those as I can at the end of the debate.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I start by associating myself with the comments of the Immigration Minister about the outstanding work that our armed forces have done in Sudan. I wish all who are there a speedy return home.
I want to make one thing absolutely clear, and it is a point with which I am sure every Member of this House agrees: the dangerous channel crossings must be stopped. Those extremely perilous journeys have tragically led to lives being lost, and the only people who benefit from that trade in human misery are the criminal smuggler gangs and people traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank at this Government’s failure to arrest and prosecute them. Labour has a comprehensive and workable five-point plan that will defeat the people smugglers and fix our broken asylum system. Our plan is expressed through the amendments and new clauses to this Bill that we have tabled, which I will speak to in due course.
Government Members repeatedly state that they wish to stop the dangerous channel crossings, but the fact is that they are completely and utterly failing to do so. Every single measure that Ministers announce turns out to be either an expensive and unworkable headline-chasing gimmick or a policy that succeeds only in making things worse, or indeed both. In the case of this legislative sham that we are debating today—this bigger backlog Bill—it is definitely both. Under the Conservatives, channel crossings have skyrocketed from 299 in 2018 to 46,000 in 2022. Throughout that period, Ministers have subjected the country to a seemingly endless stream of nonsensical proposals that have all been given pride of place on the front pages of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, only to be swiftly consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.
For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible, and of course, our credibility is severely diminished every time we fail to follow through on a commitment that we have made. Let us take a quick canter through some of the posturing and empty threats that this shambles of a Government have engaged in over the past few years. They told us that the British coastguard would be instructed to push back dinghies in the channel, which would have breached the law of the sea and potentially led to further deaths of refugees and innocent children. Then they said they were going to build a giant wave machine in the English channel—I do not know where they would find a wave machine around here, given that the Conservatives have closed down most of England’s swimming pools, although I suppose it is possible that the Prime Minister might have a spare one back at his place.
The Government then said that they were going to fly asylum seekers to Ascension Island, 4,000 miles away, and they even fantasised about sending them to Papua New Guinea, which is literally on the other side of the planet. That brings us to the Government’s latest cunning plan: they went to Kigali and paid £140 million for a press release, and 12 months later they have managed to send more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. One could be forgiven for finding all of this quite comical, but the fact is that it is deadly serious, because a vast amount of taxpayers’ money is being squandered on a profoundly unethical policy that is designed to fail on its own terms.
Even if the Rwanda scheme does get up and running, which the Government admit is unlikely to happen until at least March 2024, the Rwandan Government have refused to commit to taking more than around 1% or 2% of those who arrive here on small boats. We are talking hundreds of removals, rather than the thousands per year that might have a chance of deterring asylum seekers from crossing the channel. It will fail to stop the small boat channel crossings, because if a person has experienced personal tragedy, fought their way across continents and handed their life savings to a people smuggler so that they can endanger their own life crossing the channel, a 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda is simply not going to represent a level of risk that they might be averse to.
Yasmin Qureshi
On the Rwanda scheme, apart from paying £150 million to deport maybe 200 people, under the agreement we have to take people back from Rwanda as well.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will use as a prompt to also talk about the Israel scheme. Of course, Israel and Rwanda did a deal. What happened with that scheme? Every single one of the people who was sent from Israel to Rwanda had left Rwanda within a matter of weeks and was on their way back to Europe, so it is a very expensive way of giving people a round trip, and I would not recommend it as a deterrent.
Then, just to add to the general sense that the Government have lost the plot, we had the bizarre and frankly appalling spectacle of the Home Secretary jetting down to Rwanda with a carefully vetted gaggle of journalists to indulge in a photo shoot that was akin to a “Visit Rwanda” tourist promo. I may have missed something, but I thought the idea was to deter the channel crossings by using Rwanda as a threat. I am not quite sure how that tallies with the Home Secretary likening Kigali to the garden of Eden. One minute, Rwanda is the perfect place imaginable for a person to rebuild their life; the next, the threat of getting sent there is being deployed as a deterrent.
It is a truly farcical state of affairs, but it is also of central importance to what we are debating today, because the entire Bill is predicated on the Government being able to remove those who arrive here on small boats to a safe third country, and right now Rwanda is the only safe third country they have. As such, the fact that the Rwanda plan is unworkable, unaffordable and unethical renders this entire Bill unworkable, unaffordable and unethical.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This is an issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised before. As I said during the Bill’s earlier stages, when the Home Affairs Committee went to Calais in January and we met all the people involved in patrolling the beaches and the local officials, they told us that when the Rwanda scheme was announced, there was a surge in migrants approaching the French authorities about staying in France, because they did not want to end up on a plane to Rwanda. There was a deterrent effect; the trouble is that it has not actually started yet, but if it did, it would have an impact. That is the point.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure I follow the logic of it. He said that there was a deterrent effect, but it has not started yet, which suggests to me that there has not been a deterrent effect. If we look at the numbers, channel crossings continue to skyrocket, so I think what matters to this House is results and outcomes. As things stand, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Rwanda scheme has acted as a deterrent.
This bigger backlog Bill is rotten to its very core, because it prevents the Home Secretary from considering those who arrive here on small boats as asylum seekers, and instead obliges her to detain and remove them. However, there is nowhere to detain them, and there is nowhere to remove them to either. We already have 50,000 asylum seekers in around 400 hotels, costing the taxpayer an eye-watering £6 million every single day, and on average, each asylum seeker is waiting a staggering 450 days for a decision. The backlog now stands at 166,000, more than eight times larger than when Labour left office in 2010, when it stood at just under 19,000. Incidentally, I am still waiting for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration to apologise to the House and correct the record on that point.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned detention, and a number of amendments have been tabled today on that topic. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about detaining unaccompanied children, but I also wanted to ask my hon. Friend for his views on detaining children, families with children and pregnant women. This House has made very clear in the past its view about safeguards being required for the detention of the vulnerable groups I have just described. Does he think that we now need to think again about the detention of pregnant women and families with children?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right to highlight this issue, and she has tabled a compelling amendment to deal with it. Members on both sides of the House fought very hard for these legal limits, as she rightly pointed out, and when we are talking about the detention of pregnant women, removing those limits and paving the way for vulnerable individuals to be detained individually is morally wrong, wrong-headed and deeply counterproductive. I have not heard any argument from Ministers to justify it.
New figures reveal that this bigger backlog Bill could end up putting an extra 50,000 people into permanent taxpayer-funded accommodation this year, with hotel costs rising to more than £13 million a day, which is more than £4 billion a year during a cost of living crisis. That is because, according to the Government’s own forecasts, 53,000 who cross on small boats will be classed as inadmissible, without any prospect of being removed. What is particularly astonishing is that the Government made this same mistake last year by including similar inadmissibility provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The result is a cost of £400 million to the taxpayer in just six months, with only 21 people returned to their country of origin.
Stella Creasy
I understand why the Minister did not want to give way on this issue, despite saying that he would, but my hon. Friend raises the question of people being in hotels. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest with their own Back Benchers about the statutory instrument that they tried to slip out at the end of the previous Session that will remove the licensing laws from houses of multiple occupancy for asylum seekers? That will presumably prevent local authorities from refusing to license those places, and it will also have the consequence of meaning that we no longer require places where we are expecting families, pregnant women and small children to live to have fire alarms, smoke alarms or running water. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest about how awfully they wish to treat asylum seekers and how they will avoid local authorities being part of that conversation?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. She is absolutely right. We are talking about basic standards of decency and humanity. Houses of multiple occupancy need to be properly regulated. They need a basic floor of certification and registration and of health and safety, particularly when we are talking about families. The Government should consider being more transparent and straightforward on that point.
Fortunately, we on the Opposition Benches care about secure borders, and we will clear up the mess by delivering a firm, fair and well-managed system that will stop the dangerous channel crossings, because we know that good government is not about chasing headlines; it is about common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy. Those are the qualities that underpin our new clauses and amendments to the Bill.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I intervened on the shadow Minister in Committee, and I found out that apparently the Labour party supports a cap for safe and legal routes, which was news to me at the time. Has he had any time to think about what that cap level would be? Bearing in mind how many people would like to try to get to our country, what would the approach be to those who failed in their application, but had still travelled here illegally and got here? Would any potential future Labour Government be open to deporting those individuals?
Stephen Kinnock
The cap has to be determined in consultation with local authorities and Parliament—that is absolutely right. In terms of removals, what we need is a processing system that actually works, so that we can get to a decision. People from safe countries who should be removed need to be swiftly removed from our country, and those who are genuine asylum seekers should be granted leave to remain, so that they can get on with their lives and we can start to clear up the abject mess that this Government have made of our asylum system.
The first part of our five-point plan is to repurpose and redirect the funds currently being wasted on the money-for-nothing Rwanda plan into a new, elite, cross-border, 100-strong police force that will relentlessly pursue the ruthless criminal smuggling gangs upstream. The latest £500 million payment that the British Government have made to the French Government will be having some effect on reducing the crossings, but the reality is that we will not succeed if we focus all our efforts on the hundreds of kilometres of French coastline, where resources are bound to be spread thin. We also need sophisticated operations with the British authorities working with EU member states, Europol, Interpol and Frontex to tackle the gangs upstream. New clause 16 instructs the Government to lay before Parliament a framework for a 12-month pilot co-operation agreement with those Governments and agencies to do just that and secure the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries.
New clause 16 also incorporates the second part of our plan: securing a returns agreement with the European Union, which is essential. Since the Conservatives botched the Brexit negotiations and Britain left the Dublin convention, which had provided agreements on returns, the number of channel crossings has gone up by an astonishing 2,400%. For every one person crossing the channel in a small boat in 2019, 24 are crossing now.
There are three vital points to make on getting a returns deals. First, international challenges require international solutions. Secondly, we need an agreement with our nearest neighbours that must include returns. Thirdly, we will only strike a returns deal with the European Union if we bring something to the negotiation, and that should include a proper plan for capped safe and legal routes for bona fide asylum seekers located in mainland Europe. We suggest that Britain prioritises unaccompanied children with family in the UK, and new clause 14 reflects that.
Sir William Cash
I would like the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that when President Macron made his assertions about returns to France, the following day the European Union said it would countenance no such proposals; the EU simply does not agree about returns. Furthermore, France is not a place that people associate with persecution or threats of irreversible harm. What is his argument all about?
Stephen Kinnock
My argument is about a negotiation. We clearly have to do a returns deal; it is an important part of the deterrent effect. We do not get a returns deal unless we have something on the table. There is a clear link between policies on safe and legal routes and getting a clear position in terms of negotiations with the European Union. The reality is that it is the only deterrent effect that will work. We are dealing with people who have risked their lives, fought their way across Europe and are prepared to spend their life savings to pay people smugglers to cross the channel. We will not deter them unless they know there is a returns deal in place, and one reason that the Dublin convention worked is that it acted as a deterrent. How else can we explain that the numbers have gone through the roof since we left the Dublin convention?
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is just nonsense. In the last year that we were covered by the Dublin convention, before the pandemic struck, we applied to the EU for 8,500 returns under that returns agreement and only 105 were granted—that is 1.2%—so what he says is complete nonsense. It did not work when we were in the EU, and he is now expecting to magic up some agreement that the EU will not give us anyway. Stop misleading the House about those figures.
Stephen Kinnock
I find the hon. Gentleman’s response bizarre, because there are some simple facts, which are that we left the Dublin convention, and since then the number of small boat crossings has gone through the roof. It is not rocket science; it is a simple fact of mathematics. The point is that we cannot solve an international problem without international co-operation. We have to recognise the flow of asylum seekers coming across the European Union. The idea that we just say to the EU, “You can take them all; we are not going to take any” is for the birds. It is fantasy politics, and I am stunned that Government Members do not seem to understand that simple political fact.
Sir Chris Bryant
If the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) does not mind me mentioning her, I remember that when she was Prime Minister the first letter that she wrote to the European Union in trying to trigger article 50 said that we wanted a security treaty with the EU. That is what I would dearly love us to have. One of the great flaws of how we have left the European Union is that we have not ended up with that. Surely this measure should be part of that security treaty, so that we have better relations with Interpol, Europol and Frontex and proper sharing of information, so that we know all the details of anyone arriving in the UK. Is that not where we need to go?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from our long period of being in the European Union that, in order to get a deal with the EU, there has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be a negotiation based on a grown-up conversation about how to tackle the challenge we face, and an all-encompassing security agreement could be a very good way of opening that door, because of course the EU knows that the United Kingdom is a very important security partner for all sorts of reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely on the very strategic point he has made. Although we support the Government’s new clause 8 on safe and legal routes, we believe it should be linked to securing a returns deal with the European Union. As I said, our approach is based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, and we urge the Government to start thinking and acting in the same vein.
Our third commitment is that Labour will fix the problems with current resettlement programmes. This includes the broken Afghan schemes, and our new clause 21 instructs the Government to report every three months on progress—or lack thereof—in meeting their own targets in supporting those loyal-to-Britain Afghans who sacrificed so much to protect our servicepeople and to stand up for our liberal values in Afghanistan. All resettlement routes need to be properly controlled and managed, of course, and they therefore cannot be unlimited, but they do also need to work.
Fourthly, Labour’s long-term international development strategy will include tackling the root causes of migration upstream through increased humanitarian assistance and greater emphasis on conflict prevention and resolution programmes. This is slightly beyond the focus of the Bill, but an important aspect of migration policy—and a lesson that needs to be learned from Afghanistan in relation to Sudan, of course, which was mentioned earlier—is that if we cut aid and cut the right kind of aid, we will end up increasing the challenges around the dangerous channel crossings and hurt British values and interests.
Our comprehensive plan will also fix what is perhaps the Conservatives’ most astonishing failure of basic governance: the failure to clear the backlog. It is truly staggering that just 13% of small boat asylum claims are being processed within five years, and it is deeply troubling that, while around half of the huge 166,000 backlog is down to small boat crossings, another 80,000 has built up organically under the Conservatives since 2010.
This is no coincidence. Home Office decision making has collapsed. In 2013 the Conservatives downgraded asylum decision makers to junior staff, hired by literally going from a Saturday job one minute to making life or death decisions the next. No wonder this resulted in worse decisions, often overturned on appeal, and it is deeply troubling that the staff attrition rate in 2022 in these teams stood at an astonishing 46%. There is little prospect of improvement, given that Home Office statistics published on Monday show that this year the number of decision makers has decreased.
So let us be clear: the incompetence and indifference of consecutive Home Secretaries since 2010 have brought the basic functions of government to a grinding halt, and during this cost of living crisis the British taxpayer is paying the price. Our new clause 10 therefore sets out how the Government should get on with expediting asylum processing for the countries listed in the schedule to this Bill. If an applicant has no right to asylum in the UK, they should be removed, safely and swiftly, to the safe country from which they have come, such as Albania.
Further to new clause 10, our new clause 13 instructs the Home Secretary to publish a report every three months on the progress she is making on clearing the backlog.
John McDonnell
I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister’s flow, and I wholeheartedly support him, as we have time and again, with regard to the criticisms of the Government’s lack of processing of cases, including the lack of staffing resources. On new clause 10 and the proposal for an expedited asylum process, can my hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no lessening of the legal rights of asylum seekers, of access to legal representation and of the application of international human rights treaties and conventions?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Absolutely, the proposal is that there are a number of countries with very low grant rates and that must therefore be where we triage, and put them into a category where the processing can be expedited. However, all the processing must be done on an individual, case-by-case basis, in line with our treaty obligations; we cannot have block definitions of any particular category of asylum seeker, which of course is one of the main issues concerning the legality of the Bill, and that includes access to legal aid. So I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. We have to get the balance right: we must focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of dealing with the backlog—which must be based on triaging, giving much more support and upgrading the staff in the Home Office—but that must be underpinned by the provisions to which my right hon. Friend refers. Of course, the return on investment for improving the quality of decision making would be rapid and substantial, because quicker processing means fewer asylum seekers in hotels.
Tom Hunt
If this quiet diplomacy was not as successful as the shadow Minister hopes and a lot of these return agreements did not materialise, and all these people who arrived here illegally were green-lighted if a Labour Government were ever in charge, would there ever at any point be any policy whatsoever to deport to a safe third country?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just pointed out, we are proposing, for example, a fast track for people from safe countries. We absolutely are of the view that people whose asylum claims are not successful or legitimate should be rapidly and safely sent back to their country of origin. I hope I have understood the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not quite sure what it was.
Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about the way in which this Bill will undermine our ability to crack down on modern slavery, and we do have to ask why it is that the Prime Minister has taken the attitude he has towards trafficked women and young girls being sold as sex slaves and is so accommodating to terrorists and other criminals on the other hand. We just need to look at his tweet of 7 March, threatening victims of modern slavery with deportation; it was disgraceful, and now his Government’s amendments 114 to 116 have made it even harder for victims to come forward. It will be held up, I am afraid, by the pimps and traffickers to threaten their victims. Two former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioners, Sara Thornton and Kevin Hyland, recently warned that this Bill will devastate modern slavery protections and is a gift to criminals. All of us in this House know that this Bill is a traffickers’ charter.
Then we should look at the Prime Minister’s shocking record on deporting foreign criminals. Astonishingly, 19 terror suspects are currently living in taxpayer-funded British hotels because the Government have failed to remove them. Labour’s new clause 15 places a duty on the Secretary of State to remove suspected terrorists who have entered the country illegally or to consider the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures upon them.
Deportations of criminals have fallen off a cliff since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. They plummeted by 66% to 5,000 a year before the pandemic and to just 2,100 in 2021. This is an insult to victims, and it again proves what we all know: Labour is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but under the Conservatives criminals have never had it so good.
The Minister for Immigration was appointed to his position as the moderate voice who would curb the more fanatical tendencies of his boss, but that simply has not happened. Instead, it appears that he has either been kidnapped by the hard right of his party, or he has willingly hitched his wagon to it because he thinks that is the way the wind is blowing. However, the Minister is not alone, because his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also appears to have caved in to the Home Secretary and the Trumpian faction she leads. He has caved in by adding Government new clauses 22 and 26 to the Bill, thereby completely torpedoing his own negotiations with the European Court of Human Rights. It really is quite extraordinary that Conservative Prime Ministers never seem to learn from the fate of their predecessors: the more they appease the extremists, the more they demand. The Prime Minister is weak, and he is being played. This weakness did for his predecessors, and ultimately it will also do for him.
Arguably the most shocking part of this whole sorry tale is this Conservative Government’s contempt for taxpayer cash. Aside from losing billions to fraudsters during the pandemic, dishing out overpriced contracts to their mates for unusable personal protective equipment and crashing the economy to the tune of £30 billion, the Government’s asylum policy stands out as a prime example of Ministers scattering taxpayer money to the four winds and receiving absolutely nothing in return—chasing headlines while buying failure.
There are so many vital questions to be answered. Why, for instance, have the Government failed to publish an impact assessment? For example, do Ministers have any idea of the increase in detention capacity that will be required because of this Bill? The Home Secretary was completely unable to answer this simple question during her car crash of an interview on the radio this morning. How much will these additional detention places cost? How much will the Government pay Rwanda per asylum seeker, and how much will each flight cost? We still do not know the answer to that question one year after the £140 million was given. Our constituents deserve to know, as these decisions impact directly on their communities and on the state of our public finances. It is outrageous that the Government are not providing an iota of information about the impact of a Bill with such huge financial and community impact implications.
So we are bound to ask: what are Ministers afraid of? If they truly believe that this Bill will succeed in achieving its objectives, surely they would happily have published the impact assessment well before Second Reading, and they would have been delighted to stand at the Dispatch Box to defend it. However, there is of course another possibility, which is that Ministers have not even attempted to assess the impact of this bigger backlog Bill because they are utterly terrified of what they would reveal if they did. They are terrified of seeing the cost of their own incompetence. They are horrified by the thought of being transparent because transparency reveals the truth, and the truth is that this Bill will just make everything worse. It will boost the profits of the people smugglers. It will add tens of thousands to the backlog. It will add hundreds of millions to the hotel bills. It will tarnish Britain’s reputation as a country that upholds the international rules-based order. It will further inflame community frustration and tension, and it will add to the desperate misery of those who are seeking sanctuary from persecution and violence.
Many Conservative Members agree with every word of what I have just said, and I urge them to support our new clauses and to join us in the No Lobby when we vote against this deeply damaging and counterproductive Bill this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have had some very long opening speeches, and I have over 20 people wishing to contribute to the debate. That means that, in order to get everybody in, everybody would need to take about six minutes, if not less. We will prioritise those who have tabled amendments. That is just my guidance for the moment, because we also have the SNP spokesperson to come in.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 4, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is essentially about clause 21. Since tabling it, I have realised that the Government have a new amendment—amendment 95—which I am afraid makes quite a lot of what we are trying to achieve with our amendment 4 almost impossible to deliver. However, I will go through the purpose of our amendment and then deal with the new Government amendment.
First, a lot of this is foreshadowed by the already existing Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and we still wait to see what its impact is on a lot of this. There is some clear evidence already that it is tightening up the areas that the Government want to tighten up when it comes to those suffering from modern slavery. Therefore, first and foremost, I question the necessity of these provisions about modern slavery in the Bill at all. Frankly, I do not want to be too broad; I want to focus on this problem quite carefully.
I think, and I hope, that the Government may recognise—my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that that is the general direction of his thinking at the moment, and I really hope that is the case—that there are unintended consequences of what they have to tried to do with the changes they are making in clause 21, and that the clause would be damaged without our amendment. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) intervened with some very new evidence that the police are now saying that the effect of this, even though it is not in the Bill, is to concern people who might well give evidence that would lead to the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of trafficking. Can I just say that I think the whole purpose of this is to get the traffickers, prosecute them and put them inside? That is one of the deterrents against other traffickers doing such business, and I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to stop the business model of the traffickers, so this fits with that. The problem, as a counterpoint to that, is that clause 21 seems to move in the opposite direction and is actually now beginning to discourage people from the idea of giving evidence.
It is very important to remind everybody, because they get confused, that human trafficking is distinct from people smuggling. We tend to blur the edges of this, but human trafficking is about people who, against their will—when brought to this location or while in the UK—are themselves abused. All the issues were talked about earlier, but the reality is that this is against their will. They do not wish to do it, and we need categorical evidence of that. It is because this is dealing with the trafficking side rather than the people smuggling side that I am really concerned about it.
Remember that a majority of the potential victims referred through the national referral mechanism are exploited in the UK in full or in part. Mostly, those are non-UK nationals, but UK nationals are caught up in it as well. The majority of these cases are not relevant to those coming across on the boats; they are here. They have been trafficked, they are here and they are now involved in modern slavery, and they are possibly prepared to give evidence to the police in that regard. It could be sexual exploitation, or it could be criminal exploitation. When I was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we saw evidence of that with people brought over to stake their claims to benefits, and then they would disappear off, trafficked into brothels and various other places. I want to say that it is important that we distinguish between that and the issue of the boats.
Many of those people are likely to have arrived in the UK illegally under the terms of this Bill, whether by small boat or lorry, or with leave obtained through deception such as false documents, including deception by their exploiter. Instead of being given temporary protection in the UK, these victims—under clause 21, as now amended by amendment 95—will be subjected to removal and detention under this Bill and denied access to the statutory 30-day recovery period of support for modern slavery victims. Victims will be driven even further underground—this is our fear and the fear of those who deal with them—by the fear of deportation and trapped in the arms of their abusers. Why would that be the case? The answer is simple. If one looks at the wording of clause 21, we see straightaway a clear shift in balance: it is left to the Secretary of State to judge whether victims are going to give evidence or are giving evidence that is relevant.
Then there is Government amendment 95, which I am really concerned about. It shifts the whole rationale in the opposite direction. Instead of there being a judgment about that, under clause 21, it is clear that the premise of the Secretary of State’s decision making is now reversed:
“The Secretary of State must assume for the purposes of subsection 3(b) that it is not necessary for the person to be present in the United Kingdom to provide the cooperation in question unless the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling circumstances which require the person to be present in the United Kingdom for that purpose.”
I raised this point earlier. In doing that,
“the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
That looks to me like a bit of a closed advice section, which will come up with the same decision at the end of the day. Government amendment 95 amends clause 21, which we already had concerns about.
Mr Carmichael
Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s best efforts, and he is a model of clarity on this, it is still like trying to knit fog. Does not the fact that we are dealing here with an amendment he has tabled that has subsequently been affected by a Government amendment to the original Bill illustrate the total inadequacy of trying to deal with a Bill like this in this way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is a concern because we have clashing amendments. We know that. The point of this debate is to rectify that. We do not have a lot of time, so the right hon. Member will forgive me if I tentatively nod in his direction but at the same time pursue my own purposes. I will try to keep my remarks narrow. I do not want to go wide because other people wish to speak.
Amendment 4 is needed because victims of modern slavery experience inhumane torture and abuse. They are deprived of their liberty and their dignity. They are exploited and abused on British soil. Whether a UK citizen or a foreign national, they deserve care to recover and we cannot leave them subject to that exploitation. The point I keep coming back to is that victims in this category hold the key to the prosecution of the very traffickers we are after. We should not lose sight of that. If the inadvertent result of these changes to the Bill and the Bill itself is that victims are fearful of coming forward to give evidence, partly because the presumption is that they will leave the country, and partly because they do not have enough time to feel settled and protected to be able to give evidence—I think the police know this and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has quoted from a police statement—it will reduce the number of prosecutions, damage our case and act as an opponent, as it were, of the idea of sending a message to traffickers that their game is up.
All the evidence shows that, with appropriate consistent support, more victims engage with investigations and prosecutions, providing the vital information that brings criminals to justice. Support needs to come first to create that stability, otherwise they will not feel safe. If we put ourselves in their situation, we would not give evidence either if we thought that the next stage would be to go out of the country, where the traffickers would catch us and our families and others being abused. So it will get harder to get convictions.
I am pleased my right hon. Friend the Minister accepted there may be consequences, although we need to go further than “may”. There will be consequences as a result of the legislation. I do not believe that the Government want victims of modern slavery to be trafficked. I do not think they want the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to be damaged. In the minds of those in the Home Office, I think there is a genuine dislike of that legislation and a wish to blame it for excesses, but there is no evidence of that. Only 6% of those who claim to be victims of modern slavery have come across on boats.
First and foremost, there is not a huge, great swell. Secondly, the Nationality and Borders Act that preceded this Bill has tightened up on all the elements that claimants have to provide to show that that is the case. The rules are already tighter, and I suspect that will lead to fewer cases already. The question is, what is the point of putting these elements into the Bill, because they are in the previous Act, and we have still not seen the effects? We are putting at risk the prosecution of all those traffickers and bringing them to justice, for something that almost certainly will not happen. If it did happen, there is plenty of scope for that evidence to come forward through statutory instruments if necessary, but I do not believe that will be the case.
I am told endlessly that people will come and give false claims, but let me remind Members that referrals can be made only by official first responders who suspect that the person is a victim. In 2022, 49% of referrals were made by Government agencies— it is ironic that the Government themselves decided who were the victims. The idea that any person could come forward and suddenly say, “I’m a victim,” and therefore get lots of time, is not the case. The test of evidence is tough.
We should remember that our amendment is about those who are trafficked and abused here in the UK. That means that the evidence base will almost certainly be incredibly strong, because it is based around what we know to exist here in the UK. I understand that it is difficult when people are trafficked from abroad, but we are talking about people in the UK and their evidence is clear to all of us. Under the changes made to the national referral mechanism statutory guidance on 30 January 2023—which, again, we have yet to see the full effects of—the threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision has been raised to require objective evidence of exploitation. This is an unnecessary element of the Bill because we have yet to see the effect of the previous Act, which I believe is already having an impact, as do the police.
Other Members want to speak, so I will conclude my comments by saying that we should proceed with caution when it comes to modern day slavery. I am deeply proud of what we did and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead brought through, because it deals with victims, who cannot speak for themselves and are being used and abused by others. We were the first country in the world to do so, and others have followed suit. We need to send the right signals. The problem with the Bill is that it unnecessarily targets a group of people who are not the problem. They will suffer and, ironically, we will fail as a Government in home affairs because the police simply will not be able to get those prosecutions. On every ground, it is wrong.
Government amendment 95 is a disastrous attempt to make it almost impossible for anyone in the country to feel confident before they give evidence. I ask the Government to make it clear at the end of the debate that they will take this issue away, genuinely look at the unintended consequences and make that case to us, before we vote on their amendment.
Alison Thewliss
I will speak to the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Given his concerns about the Bill, I hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby later, because I do not expect that he will get the assurances that he hopes for from the Minister.
The Bill remains an affront to human decency and to our obligations to our fellow human beings. It rips up hard-won international protections and is in breach of the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention, the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking in human beings and the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner of Scotland has said that the Illegal Migration Bill
“represents a direct assault on the concept of universality of human rights and the rule of law.”
Organisations have lined up to condemn the Bill, from the UNHCR, Liberty, Amnesty International, trade unions and medical bodies. It seeks to turn ships’ captains and train drivers into border guards, and it creates a sub-class of people in immigration limbo forever.
This refugee ban Bill is based on myths, mistruths and the myopic pursuit of clicks and tabloid headlines. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the wild claims made by the Home Secretary and her acolytes. The Bill will not meet its stated aims, but it will cost lives. It fails to provide safe and legal routes, and it will cause untold suffering. It diminishes the UK in the eyes of the world and it yanks on the thread that will unravel refugee protections across the world.
The Bill delivers people who have been trafficked back into the hands of those who would exploit them. In his article published this morning in ConservativeHome, the Immigration Minister descended yet further, speaking of those with “different lifestyles and values” cannibalising compassion. That is not a dog whistle but a foghorn.
The process by which the Government have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill is an insult to democracy and to the House. It has been rushed through without a full Committee stage or evidence sessions—no evidence whatsoever from the Government about the things they have put forward. Swathes of Government amendments have been brought forward today in haste, but there has not yet been an impact assessment, even at this very late stage. It is unacceptable that we are being asked to vote on something without an impact assessment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has requested an impact assessment umpteen times in the House and via a freedom of information request, but nothing has yet been forthcoming. I know the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has also been tirelessly pursuing an impact assessment of the Bill. It is testimony to the Government’s dogged evasion of scrutiny, not to their lack of effort, that that has been fruitless.
As Members of Parliament, we are guarantors of rights. The SNP’s amendment 45 seeks to hold the UK Government to their international obligations—how utterly bizarre and reprehensible that we even have to introduce an amendment to ensure that—and to attempt to have the provisions in the Bill line up with convention rights in the UN refugee convention, the European convention on action against trafficking, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention relating to the status of stateless persons.
Anyone reading the UNHCR legal observations on the Illegal Migration Bill can plainly see how far the UK Government are deviating from international norms. Those observations say:
“The Bill all but extinguishes the right to claim asylum in the UK…breaches the UK’s obligations towards stateless people under international law…would lead to violations of the principle of non-refoulement…would deny refugees and stateless people access to their rights under international law.”
They go on to say that the Bill violates article 31(1) and 31(2) of the UN refugee convention and international human rights law,
“puts at risk the safety and welfare of children”
and
“would increase the pressure on the UK asylum system”.
What an atrocious mess this Government are making.
Further to this condemnation from the UNHCR, the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings stressed that, if adopted, the Bill would run contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the anti-trafficking convention to prevent human trafficking and to identify and protect victims of trafficking, without discrimination.
The Home Secretary appears to misunderstand the very nature of modern slavery and human trafficking, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches have outlined. Perhaps that could be accounted for by the lack of an independent anti-slavery commissioner, as the post has now been standing vacant for a year. The previous holder of the post, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week on how the national referral mechanism actually works. I suggest the Immigration Minister should have read that evidence before coming to the House with such proposals as he has today.
New clause 26 replaces the placeholder clause 51 and gives the Government the power to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights and remove people who would otherwise have not been removed. The clause hands powers to Government Ministers to unilaterally decide whether the UK should uphold its international obligations. Liberty has described this as a concerning shift of power away from Parliament and towards the Executive. Yet again we are seeing the stripping away of crucial checks and balances—another Westminster power grab that has become a hallmark of this Government.
I tell you what this is really about, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about setting up a fight with the European Court of Human Rights. It is about setting out to breach international law. It is about sleight of hand and deflection from the Conservatives’ failure to get a grip on the immigration backlog that they created. They think that if the public are somehow distracted by judges in their jammies, they will forget about the incompetence of the Minister. I give my constituents and people up and down these islands more credit than that—their heids don’t button up the back.
One of the most egregious aspects of the Bill is its impact on children. The Children’s Commissioners are crystal clear about the harm that it will cause; the Minister should heed their calls. The Scottish National party is happy to support new clauses 2 and 3 on pregnancy, given the impact on both the mother and the child in the circumstances; amendments 2 and 3 and new clause 14 on safe and legal routes and family reunion for children; amendment 5 on unaccompanied children; and new clause 4 on an independent child trafficking guardian.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that it works both ways? I have a constituent who offered her home to a “17-year-old” asylum-seeking young man. He had all the benefits of being under 19, but then he revealed that on his next birthday he would be 24. We need to talk openly and fairly about the safeguarding issues, both for our own children and for children coming from other countries.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, but the fact is that the medical professionals just do not support the methods that the Government are suggesting to determine age.
Alison Thewliss
Is the right hon. Member going to disagree with the British Dental Association?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that I tabled an amendment in Committee which the Government have now refashioned and tabled on Report, precisely because there is a pedigree for such testing across European countries. Many European countries routinely use such testing to establish whether children are actually children and to avoid the eventualities that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) has just mentioned.
Alison Thewliss
The British Dental Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Unison’s experts disagree with the right hon. Member. These are professionals. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing on the Front Bench and denigrating a trade union. Given the Government’s current position with respect to industrial disputes, I do not think that that is particularly wise of him. He might want to think about that.
I acknowledge Government amendments 134 and 136, but I am afraid I have real problems trusting the Government, because detaining children is wrong: that is the fundamental point here. The Government want to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which unaccompanied children should be detained, and further regulations on time limits. They do not have the courage to put those proposals into the Bill, and they know that we cannot amend statutory instruments should they deign to introduce them at some point in the future. We do not trust them to do the right thing here, because children are children, and it would be extremely harmful for them to be detained.
We tabled amendment 47 to try to humanise the Bill. Much has been said about hordes of people coming here and trying to claim asylum, but this, fundamentally, is about individual people, many of them fleeing circumstances that Conservative Members cannot even imagine. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to disapply the provision in clause 2 from people in a range of categories. The first, in subsection (a), covers
“a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK”,
such as Shireen, whom I mentioned earlier, and many others like him.
Subsection (b) refers to a person from Afghanistan
“where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm…if returned to that country”.
In Committee, I tried to personalise my amendments by putting a name to each of them. I could call this “Sabir’s amendment”, after Sabir Zazai, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council. He came here as a child in the back of a lorry, but he would be prevented from so doing, criminalised and removed to Rwanda if the Government had their way. He makes an outstanding contribution to Scotland. He has two letters which he said he would put on the wall in his house. One is from the Home Office, saying, “You are a person liable to be detained and removed.” The second was sent on behalf of the royal family when he was awarded the OBE.
Subsection (c) specifies
“ a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection”.
That would cover many people who are currently fleeing from Sudan. Earlier, the Minister failed to identify a proper “safe and legal” route—
Alison Thewliss
No, the Minister did not do that. What he has done is push this on to those at the UNHCR, who say that it is not their job. They have also said that the tiny minority, the 1%, who manage to gain access to its relocation scheme are not suitable, in that there is not enough in that very small scheme to replace a functional asylum system.
My constituent Ilios is a British citizen whose wife and son are trapped in Sudan and are unable to obtain their documents because the British Embassy staff are out of the country, although they now have the right to travel. Will they be able to come to the UK safely through some other mechanism? Will it be possible for people who happen to be in Sudan with refugee travel documents, perhaps with family members visiting there, to be evacuated by the UK forces? The position remains unclear.
Subsection (d) refers to
“ a person…where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if”
that person
“were to be removed in accordance with this section”.
I recently had a call with LGBT rights activists in Uganda, which is introducing brutal laws to persecute LGBT people, up to the point of the death penalty. People are terrified over there. They are talking about mob justice, and of families being at risk as a result of even knowing that their loved ones are LGBT. If they were able to escape Uganda and come here, there would be no means under the Bill to prevent the Government from sending them back rather than protecting them, so we seek to put that protection into the Bill.
Subsection (e) covers
“a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of torture”.
In Committee I mentioned Kolbassia, who founded Survivors Speak OUT. I talk to people in my constituency surgeries who have been victims of torture. They deserve protection; they do not deserve this Bill.
Subsection (f) refers to “a Ukraine citizen”. There is no Ivan or Oksara who needs to come here in a boat, because there is a safe and legal route: they can come here perfectly legally, without having to resort to that. We should be making that route available to more people.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am listening closely to what the hon. Lady is saying. When I was the Children’s Minister, every single local authority in Scotland bar one was refusing to take any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Why?
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Lady may not be as well-informed as she hopes she is. Every single local authority in Scotland took people under the Syria scheme and they were proud to do so. We took a greater proportion than the rest of the UK. We would be willing to take more people if the Home Office would only honour its side of the bargain. The Minister is looking at me askance, but the Home Office is choosing where people go. The Home Office is booking hotels. The Home Office is not working with local government in Scotland to do this properly, and I can tell him that it is not working properly with local elected Members. I am aware of plans to put an asylum hotel in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Minister asks me if I am opposing it. I would not know, because he has not given me the details of it. I have known about it since January, but he has not even bothered to get in touch with me as the local elected Member to discuss it. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Subsection (g) of amendment 47 relates to
“a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery”.
I mentioned at a previous stage of the Bill that this could be Eva’s amendment. She is a survivor who was helped and supported by the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance —TARA—in my constituency. She came here and ended up being trapped in sex work. Those people deserve particular help and support, but it will be denied to them under this Bill. Services such as TARA will find it difficult to operate once the Bill passes.
Subsection (h) refers to exempting
“a person who has family members in the United Kingdom”.
We could call this Ibrahim’s amendment. He is a constituent of mine who had family stuck in Iran. He has found it very difficult to get them here. People should not have to wait in situations of danger for the Home Office eventually to get round to processing their applications, because for many it is a situation of life and death. They cannot wait for the Iranian authorities or the Taliban to come and find them. They cannot wait to be persecuted or tortured or killed. People are fleeing for their lives and the Home Office’s very slow decision making puts people at risk.
Subsection (i) refers to a
“person who meets the definition of an ‘adult at risk’ in paragraph 7 of the Home Office guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”
I have talked previously about Priya, a trafficking survivor who was detained in Yarl’s Wood when she was pregnant and unable to access the services that would have kept her safe. There are many people like that, and under this legislation we will see more women, including pregnant women, being locked up in immigration detention.
Government amendment 95 states that
“it is not necessary for the person to be present in the United Kingdom”
to give evidence regarding trafficking. Professor Dame Sara Thornton, the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, gave evidence on this to the Home Affairs Committee last week. She said that asking people to give evidence after they had been removed from the UK would be “astonishingly difficult operationally”, “complex and complicated” and “very challenging indeed”. I would question the very efficacy of this process, because there is no recognition of the difficulties that it would cause. Co-operation with people once they have moved away will be practically very difficult, as will dealing with police forces in other parts of the world. It is unclear what level of co-operation will be required to get some kind of exemption to this requirement to give evidence after removal. What will those “compelling circumstances” be? There is also no recognition of the trauma that this will cause to people.
Dr Katarina Schwartz of the Rights Lab presented evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning on the impact that this proposal could have on prosecutions. She said that
“if a survivor is heavily traumatised and being questioned by the police, they will not be able to give good testimony”.
She also said that
“the impact of decreasing support for survivors on both their own experiences of recovery and integration and on their inability to testify is enormous”.
She spoke about the benefits to the person, to the prosecutions and economically to the UK of doing it right and of having people come through a process and do well from it.
This is a dangerous, atrocious Bill. It rips up rights, it undermines our international obligations and it rides roughshod over devolution. It puts children at risk and it places those who have been trafficked more firmly than ever back into the hands of the exploiters, who will more easily avoid prosecution due to the measures in this tawdry Bill. It will not work. We will amend it, but we know that amendments are not enough to fix this unfixable Bill. We know in Scotland that better things are possible, and we wholeheartedly reject this Bill. We are appalled at its imposition against the will of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. We on the SNP Benches say it loud and clear: refugees are welcome here. We reject this fascist, dystopian assault on human rights.
Mrs Theresa May
I will concentrate my remarks on amendment 4, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I have also signed it—and Government amendment 95.
Before I do so, I want to say a word about evidence. The Minister has indicated again today that, in his view, there is evidence that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is being abused. I apologise for doing this to him again, but he might wish to look at the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee this morning by a representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, basically saying there is no evidence to support the claim that the national referral mechanism is being abused. On the contrary, the evidence is that there is a low level of abuse. They went on to say that the biggest problem with the NRM is not abuse but the big delay in finding an answer for victims, which is of course within the Government’s control because it is about the length of time that officials are taking to consider cases.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss the concerns I raised in Committee. I welcomed the Government’s apparent attempt to improve the Bill for victims of modern slavery, and their willingness to look at that, but then I saw Government amendment 95. Far from making the Bill better for victims of modern slavery, the amendment makes the Bill worse. I believe the Minister was talking in good faith, but it is hard to see Government amendment 95 as an example of good faith. It is a slap in the face for those of us who actually care about victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.
Equally concerning, Government amendment 95 suggests that those who are responsible for the Bill simply do not understand the nature of these crimes or the position of victims. The Minister wants to see an end to human trafficking, and he wants to stop the traffickers’ business model, as do many of us on both sides of the House, but the best way to do that is by identifying, catching and prosecuting the traffickers and slave drivers.
Government amendment 95, by making it an assumption that victims do not need to be present in the UK to assist an investigation, makes it much harder to investigate and prosecute the traffickers and slave drivers. It has been shown time and again that victims’ ability to give evidence is affected by the support they receive. They need to feel safe and they need to have confidence in the authorities.
As Detective Constable Colin Ward of Greater Manchester Police says:
“If we get the victim side right first, the prosecutions will eventually naturally follow, alongside us doing the evidence-based collection of that crime.”
Support for victims matters in catching the slave drivers. Sending victims back to their own country, or to a third country such as Rwanda, will at best make them feel less secure and, therefore, less able or less willing to give the evidence that is needed, and will at worst drive them back into the arms of the traffickers and slave drivers.
Again, the representative from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe made the point today at the Home Affairs Committee that the UK has been leading the world in identifying victims exploited by criminal activity. That tells us that these people are vulnerable, because they have been compelled by traffickers to engage in criminal activity. Disqualifying them from our ability to rescue them will mean the UK is no longer able to identify them, and it will leave them to the mercy of the traffickers. Far from helping, Government amendment 95 flies in the face of what the Minister and the Government say they want to do to deal with the traffickers and slave drivers and to break their business model.
The Government have previously used clause 21(5) to tell us that they are providing more support for victims of slavery. Government amendment 95 reverses that by making it even harder for victims to get the support they need, which I think would be a setback in the fight against the slave drivers and traffickers.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is making a good speech. The reality is that amendment 95 poses a threat. Straightaway, its assumption is that someone goes, rather than that they have to prove anything; they go first and then somebody has to prove that they have to be here. What are they going to do when they look at that? They are going to say, “We’re off, so why would we give evidence?”
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that this is an unintended consequence of the Government’s amendment, but I fear, given that they tabled it, that they knew all too well what they were doing with this amendment, because they just want people to leave the UK. As he says, assuming that where somebody is identified they are going to have to leave the UK means that they are less likely to give evidence, and we will not catch and prosecute so many traffickers and slave drivers. Sadly, all too often those individuals will return to a country where they will be straight into the arms of the traffickers and slave drivers again.
The purpose of amendment 4 is simple: to ensure that victims who are being exploited, in slavery, here in the UK are able to continue to access the support they need, which will enable them to find a new life here or indeed in their home country. Not everybody who has been trafficked here for slavery wants to stay in the UK. Many of them want to return home, but they need to be given the support that enables that to be possible.
Amendment 4, if accepted, would ensure that it would be more likely that the criminals were caught. This Bill says, “If you are a victim of modern slavery who came here illegally, we will detain and deport you, because your slavery is secondary to your immigration status.” It has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status. Modern slavery is not a migration issue, not least because more than half of those referred to the national referral mechanism here in the UK for modern slavery are UK citizens here in the UK.
Modern slavery is the greatest human rights issue of our time. The approach in this Bill will have several ramifications. It will consign victims to remaining in slavery. The Government will be ensuring that more people will stay enslaved and in exploitation as a result of this Bill, because it will give the slave drivers and traffickers another weapon to hold people in that slavery and exploitation. It will be easy to say to them, “Don’t even think about trying to escape from the misery of your life, from the suffering we are subjecting you to, because all that the UK Government will do is send you away, probably to Rwanda.” The Modern Slavery Act gave hope to victims, but this Bill removes that hope. I genuinely believe that if enacted as it is currently proposed, it will leave more people—more men, women and children—in slavery in the UK.
As I have said, another impact of the Bill will be fewer prosecutions and fewer criminals being caught and put behind bars. I apologise to the Minister for bouncing him with the Greater Manchester Police evidence that I cited earlier, but it is very relevant and he needs to look at it. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already means that people who are in slavery—the figures on those who get a positive decision from the national referral mechanism show this—are not coming forward because of the evidence requirement now under that Act. That is having a real impact and it means fewer prosecutions of the criminals.
I wish to mention the impact on children, and I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns of the Children’s Commissioner. Other Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), have long championed, through the process of this Bill, the issue of children. My concern is particularly about those children who are in slavery in this country and being cruelly exploited, as victims need support.
The Children’s Commissioner has cited the example of Albin, a 16-year-old Albanian national who came to the UK in September via a boat. He was trafficked for gang and drug exploitation. It was clear to the Border Force that he was young and malnourished, and that he had significant learning difficulties. He was provided support, including from the Children’s Commissioner’s Help at Hand team, but the point the commissioner makes is that
“without the NRM decision…he would have not been processed through the immigration/asylum route as quickly and he would have not received the adequate support to meet his needs.”
Upon receiving the positive decision for the NRM, the social care team was able to transfer him to a suitable placement. That 16-year-old would otherwise have potentially been detained and deported by the Government.
It is important that we consider the impact on children who are victims of slavery. I put the arguments earlier about making it harder to prosecute the slave drivers, and that covers child victims as well, but there may well be an added element for the traffickers to use to keep children enslaved, by which I mean the situation in Rwanda. UNICEF said:
“In Rwanda, over half of all girls and six out of ten boys experience some form of violence during childhood. Children are usually abused by people they know—parents, neighbours, teachers, romantic partners or friends. Only around 60% of girls in Rwanda who are victims of violence tell someone about it, and the rate is even lower for boys.”
I recognise that that quote relates to children in Rwanda being abused by people known to them, but the environment is hardly conducive to the good care of children.
Amendment 4 would remove the problem by ensuring that those identified as being exploited into slavery here in the UK could still access the support provided under the Modern Slavery Act. We have led the world in providing support for those in slavery by what we have done here in the United Kingdom. The Bill significantly damages the operation of that Act. It is bad for victims, bad for the prosecution of slave drivers and bad for the reputation of the United Kingdom.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying from the Dispatch Box that he was willing to talk and listen to us to see whether we can find a way through this. I say to him quite simply that the best way to do that is through amendment 4. That is what removes the problem in relation to the victims of modern slavery, so I hope the Government will be willing to look very carefully at that amendment and to listen to what we have said. What we are talking about is not just what we say, but what those who are identifying and dealing with the victims of modern slavery are experiencing day in, day out. They worry that more people will be in slavery as a result of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of the Chair of the new Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. A total of 384 votes were cast, none of which was invalid. There were two rounds of counting. There were 362 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 182 votes. Angus Brendan MacNeil was elected Chair with 188 votes. He will take up his post immediately. I congratulate him on his election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.
I now call Dame Diana Johnson, after whom I shall have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I thank her for highlighting the evidence that we heard this morning at the Home Affairs Committee on the issue of trafficking and modern slavery, and I again pay tribute to the work that she did on that pioneering piece of legislation in 2015.
I think the right hon. Lady is right that the Government do not fully understand the law in this area of modern slavery and trafficking. I support what she said about amendments 95 and 4. I noted that, at the start of proceedings, the Minister said that it is important that we get the Bill right, and it is absolutely important that we do so. As we enter this final stretch for the House to have the opportunity to debate and amend the Bill,
I wish again to express my concerns about the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. The impact assessment is now seven weeks late, and it is wholly unacceptable that the House is being forced to pass this very significant legislation with no firm analysis on whether it will work or what the cost will be. According to the Refugee Council, the Bill could cost as much as £9 billion over the next three years.
I again refer to the Home Affairs Committee report on small boat crossings, in which we were very clear about the need for evidence-based policy making. It is regrettable that this Bill is being forced through at breakneck speed with no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. I know the Minister has had to table a lot of Government amendments to deal with issues that perhaps should have been thought through before, and we have heard that he will reconsider issues around modern slavery and trafficking as well.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the amendments she has tabled and the work she does with the Select Committee. Does she agree with my constituents who have written to me, precisely on this issue, to say that the Bill risks our reputation internationally for providing a safe haven for those who are fleeing persecution, and that we must do all we can to ensure that that reputation is maintained?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Reputation is important in this area, and the approach taken on this particular point will hurt our country more than it helps us. For example, it will not help us to get a returns agreement with EU countries, which I think we all agree is necessary if we are to start to tackle irregular migration.
I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing provisions for legal aid in the Bill, which I think is a positive step forward, but I am concerned that they do not acknowledge that there are currently legal aid deserts across the country that leave genuine asylum seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking without access to legal advice. The sector is on the point of collapse and access to advice regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is really hard to come by for the many people who desperately need it. I hope the Minister will set out how people will be able to access that legal advice and assistance.
On new clause 8 and amendment 11, I welcome the Government moving on the safe and legal routes. Again, that is in line with recommendations that the Home Affairs Committee made in its report.
At Committee stage, I raised several concerns with the Minister about the lack of consideration for vulnerable children within the Bill. The Bill creates broad powers to detain unaccompanied children, removing essential safeguards and time limits that had previously been enacted by this House.
I know the Minister said in his opening remarks that he was going to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I am pleased to hear that. However, unfortunately, the Bill as currently drafted will still allow the unlimited detention of pregnant women, ending the current 72-hour time limit—a limit put in place by the Government in 2016.
The Bill also abolishes necessary safeguards for children who are accompanied, undoing the protection put in place by the Government in 2014. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner and the Refugee Council have all raised serious concerns about those proposed changes, and I agree completely with the issues that they have raised.
That is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to uphold the existing detention limits for children, families with children and pregnant women. They were introduced by this House for very good reason and should be upheld. Limits on detention deliver essential safeguards for the most vulnerable people who arrive on our shores, ensuring that while we process their claims we keep them safe, we treat them with care and we do no further harm. The UK has been a stalwart of that decency, but these specific detention measures are a major step backwards for families, for children and for pregnant women.
I welcome Government amendments 134 and 136, and the support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but even with those changes, the Bill does not extend the appropriate protection to children with families or to pregnant women. My amendments have cross-party support, including from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, and from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, consider again whether anything can be done on the amendments. If he is not minded to do that, I will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House on that important issue.
I also welcome the Government’s change of heart on the ban on future citizenship for children born in the UK to parents who meet the conditions in clause 2. That delivers on at least half of my amendment 8. However, I firmly push back to the Minister that it still cannot be right that an eight-year-old child brought here by their parents would be forever barred from citizenship as an adult. I raised that point in Committee. It seems completely illiberal to punish a child for the actions of their parents or carers. Will the Minister look again at amendment 8?
I have tabled several other practical amendments underlining the protections and considerations for children, which I believe need to be addressed. Those amendments are all supported by the Children’s Commissioner, and some have foundations in the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings. I hope that the Minister will consider them in that vein.
The Government’s approach to tackling migrants in the Bill remains problematic in respect of children. There are several measures and amendments before the House that could be adopted while still allowing the Government to deliver—arguably more effectively and practically—on their stated aims. There are other, less headline-catching measures that will also uphold the essential safeguarding provisions that the House has put in place over the years to protect victims of trafficking and modern slavery, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, asylum seekers and refugees.
Finally, the Home Affairs Committee has started an inquiry on slavery and trafficking. We were very fortunate to have had evidence from Baroness Butler-Sloss last week, and from the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sarah Thornton, both of whom took the view that the Bill will not help victims of modern slavery and trafficking; it will do the exact opposite. I again ask the Minister to listen to the experts in the field. It is notable that two Conservative Members—the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead—made compelling arguments on why the provisions relating to modern slavery and trafficking need to be considered once again.
The other place may take further views, but does the Minister seriously want to make it harder for victims to come forward? If—as Dame Sarah Thornton said—a woman is trafficked into this country after 7 March, taken to a brothel and repeatedly raped, but manages to escape and seek help, does the Minister want to ensure that she is told that no assistance can be given and that she will be removed to Rwanda? Is that how we want to treat people like her?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Hon. Members will have noticed that we are endeavouring first to call those who have tabled amendments. After that, I or my successor will accommodate as many Members as possible.
Mrs Elphicke
I rise to speak to amendment 184, which was tabled in my name and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and many other right hon. and hon. Friends.
The stop the boats Bill is important to my Dover and Deal constituency because it focuses specifically on the problems of small boat arrivals by dramatically reducing the pull factor that draws people to the United Kingdom—namely, that once people are here, it is very hard to remove them. The Bill cuts through all that. It says, plainly and simply: “If you’ve arrived here illegally, you won’t be allowed to stay.”
I have long said that the small boats crisis will end only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they will not succeed. Stopping the boats is the right and compassionate thing to do. It will save lives that are being risked in the channel. The Bill and today’s amendments, particularly new schedule 1, will send a clear and unmistakable message to would-be channel migrants: “If you are thinking of breaking into Britain in a small boat, don’t bother. Save your cash and stay safe on land.”
Let me turn to the details of amendment 184. Clause 4, to which the amendment relates, sets out the circumstances in which human rights and other protection cases can be excluded. Put simply, if a person arrives through the small boats route, they will not be allowed to try to prevent their removal through endless legal appeals paid for by the British taxpayer.
The amendment focuses specifically on those who would put our public safety or national security at risk. This approach is in line with the UN refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, which has always allowed countries to protect themselves from those who would cause the most serious risk of harm to them and their countrymen and women.
The amendment would apply whether or not the country of origin can be identified—for example, if someone is undocumented, perhaps because they have eaten their identity papers or thrown their passport in the channel, or, as border officials tell me has shockingly been the case, if someone has taken razor blades to their fingers to damage and destroy their fingerprints to avoid identification.
At the frontline of my constituency in Dover and Deal, this is not a matter of open-borders fervour or pro-migration ideological dogma, as some of the contributions today have suggested; it is a matter that directly affects my constituency and our country’s safety, security and peace of mind. A key reason why the small boats Bill and amendment 184 matter is that when Dover and Deal residents raise matters of concern, the official Opposition do not back them and do not even believe them. When migrants ran amok and broke into a woman’s house, before being apprehended in a bedroom, the leader of the Labour group on Dover District Council went on TV to cast doubt on residents’ accounts, dismissing them as misreportings. He said that we should be “more generous” to illegal channel migrants.
The reality is that Labour’s new clause 15 is a smokescreen for allowing more legal challenge and more taxpayer costs —more potential loopholes to allow those who would wish our country harm to stay here. New clause 15(2) would require a Secretary of State to consider imposing TPIMs on illegal migrants who are suspected of terrorism, if they cannot remove them, but as the Minister has said, the Government are doing that anyway. The Government will always act to protect the country’s national security.
If Opposition Members want to ensure our country’s safety and security, they should back the Government’s “stop the boats” Bill and they should back swift removals. New clause 15 pretends to be tough, but in fact it would result in slower appeals than the fast-track process the Government have set out. In my constituency we see Labour’s true colours: it is an open-borders, pro-immigration party. It does not want to stop the boats. Just like Brexit, so on small boats: Labour cannot be trusted and does not listen.
I thank the Minister for engaging with us on amendment 184. I have had the reassurance that I sought, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment, so we will not press it to a vote today. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Minister to stop the boats.
Stella Creasy
Let us be very clear: demonising refugees will not tackle the cost of living crisis in this country, but it might create some local election leaflets, just like this piece of legislation. We know that this legislation will not survive the other place, thankfully, so the question for us today is: what messages do we need to send to our colleagues in the other House as they scrutinise and hold to account this Government, given that the Government have systematically failed to provide the time for scrutiny in this place?
Stella Creasy
The Minister has not explained why he has put forward that statutory instrument. People will still come because it is still better than the death that they face in the country they are fleeing from. We see that with the Sudanese. The Minister said earlier that he would listen to the UNHCR when it came to taking Sudanese refugees; in that case, he needs to tell us how many he will take because right now, there are people facing that very same situation. There are no queues in a war zone.
Stella Creasy
With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon. Member for Stone and have yet to find any common ground on these issues.
Frankly, it is about time that we stood up for the importance of the international rule of law and helping people when they are facing these situations. There are no queues in a war zone, there is no administration or bureaucracy: there is fear, terror and persecution, and those people who are in Sudan now will be asking those questions. If the Minister wants to answer them and give those people hope that, if they make it to the border or to one of the refugee camps—they may find one of those UNHCR people who does not think that the UNCHR has that relationship with the UK but thinks the Minister is prepared to do that—we will take a certain number of people, that might stop them fleeing. This legislation will not do so.
More people will keep coming, including from Afghanistan, where the Government have failed to bring in a safe and legal route, and where they still fail to listen to those of us who have constituents who have been affected by that fact. They will come from Eritrea. They will come from the war zones and places of persecution—those people whose religion means that they are at risk. They will come because they see what we did with the Ukrainians; they see this country, and they know that there is a better way of doing it. The Lords will take this legislation on—that is probably the point of it for the Government—but let nobody be under any illusions: the Bill is just about 4 May. It is not actually about resolving the problem.
Tim Loughton
It is difficult to know in five minutes how to address the five amendments with my name at the top, including the two that have been leapfrogged by the Home Secretary. I have spent many hours cossetted with the Minister for Immigration and others to try to get some of the adjustments being made, and I am grateful for the time he has spent to try to get us to a better place. I certainly do not have time to respond to the extensive assurances that he aimed to give me from the Dispatch Box earlier.
I support safe and legal routes. I am glad we will now have them on the face of the Bill. We need a balance. I support this Bill, but if we are to be tough on the abusers of our immigration system, we also have to ensure we are open and generous to genuine asylum seekers, to whom we owe a duty of care. The amendments on safe and legal routes are also timely because we needed to address the question that I posed to the Home Secretary some months ago about how the 16-year-old orphan from east Africa with relations in the UK would make it to the UK. This week, that apocryphal scenario became a reality. The measures that the Immigration Minister will be bringing forward need to address that question.
It is essential that the Immigration Minister consults local authorities about capacity, but he also needs to consult refugee organisations and others about the type of schemes with which we will come forward. How will they operate? Who will qualify for them? How will people access them? Let us make sure that those schemes are in place sooner rather than later in 2024, although I would have liked them to be contemporaneous. We have a deal on safe and legal routes, but we need to see some real workable details in the coming months and as the Bill goes through the Lords.
I have no time to talk about amendment 181 on the return of children or amendment 182 on best interest and welfare checks. My real concern has been on child detention, so I was grateful for the assurances that the Immigration Minister gave me, because the measures as they stand do not differentiate between children and adults in detention terms. They ride roughshod through the safeguards on child detention under the Immigration Bill 2014, through which this Government specified the 24-hour limit, and the Government have not even offered to put the maximum detention times for children in this Bill. That is a must when it comes to any amendments that the Minister can bring forward in the House of Lords.
Edward Timpson
I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes in support of children. Does he also agree that we need absolute clarity on the responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 in all circumstances where a child is on these shores, and in particular where the Home Office itself has some responsibility?
Tim Loughton
That is absolutely right. It is notable that three former Children’s Ministers are behind the measures we are trying to push today. It is essential that any child in this country, whether a refugee here temporarily or someone here for the long term, is covered by the welfare considerations of the Children Act. I am grateful that the Minister referred to the Children Act. As it stands, despite the measures that mean there will be a differentiation between children and adult detention—we do not know what yet—under the Bill a 12-year-old child claiming asylum could still be in a Home Office detention centre facility for 27 days. That is not a good look, and it must not happen.
Vicky Ford
I add my voice to the chorus of former Children’s Ministers on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the period for which a child could be detained when they first arrive to find them suitable accommodation needs to be a matter of days, not weeks, and that that needs to be in the Bill?
Tim Loughton
That is what we put in the Immigration Act 2014 with the then Immigration Minister, now the Transport Secretary. What has changed between 2014 and 2023 that means apparently we have to detain children indefinitely? We need timescales in the Bill, as we had in 2014. I appreciate there are practical problems about age verification for those who are challenged. We may have to have a two-tier system, but certainly those children who are recognised generally as children should not be locked up in detention centres and Home Office facilities, and that has to be made absolutely clear when this Bill goes to the Lords.
We also need to know how and where the Government plan to accommodate those children once identified. The accommodation does not exist at the moment, and the Government have only a few months to magic it up if we want to get this legislation through in a matter of months. I share the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns. She said:
“The Bill is unclear on what the state of the accommodation will be for children while awaiting transfer to local authority care or removal from the country…What regulations will be in place for Home Office provided accommodation? If the accommodation is regulated which body will inspect them?”
There are a lot of questions to be asked. We are taking the assurances from the Minister on trust. We will not continue with a lack of detail when the Bill gets to the Lords, but for the moment we will not force it, because I trust the Minister to do the right thing before the Bill goes through its final stages.
Apsana Begum
I rise to speak to a range of amendments and new clauses seeking to protect people from the attacks on basic human dignity that are before the House today. I am supporting new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the ongoing human rights breaches that migrants endure, which have been happening for some time, but today I shall focus on how the legislation treats those who are pregnant, because not only will the Bill persecute and imprison people fleeing torture, war and oppression, but it will put the health of some of the most vulnerable of them—pregnant women—and the life of their unborn children at risk. That is why I have tabled new clause 2 seeking to exempt pregnant women and girls from provisions about removals. My new clause 3 seeks to require an independent review of the effect of the provision on pregnant migrants, and my new clause 7 is about a review of the effect of the measures on the health of migrants.
I am also supporting related amendments to prevent an immigration officer’s and the Secretary of State’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependent children, or pregnant women, as tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
In order to cut through the dehumanising othering that too often plagues debates on migration—I note the awful nature of the comments made earlier today in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the dental testing of young migrants, which I find dehumanising and an othering of different communities—I would like to draw the House’s attention to a real-life example to illustrate the human reality of what is being debated today.
Najma Ahmadi and her family fled from the Taliban and made 20 attempts to cross into Greece from Turkey—20 attempts. On two occasions, Najma nearly drowned, once while pregnant with her baby daughter. She finally arrived in the UK last July on a boat, her terrified one-year-old baby girl clutched against her. Najma and her family were entitled to asylum, which was granted last December, but we must not forget those pregnant women escaping persecution who have died seeking refuge. For example, Yohanna, an Eritrean woman thought to be about 20 years old, who gave birth as she drowned alongside many others, when the boat she was travelling on, trying to get to safety, capsized. And there are many other women who remain unnamed.
These women are not criminals, but this Government are proposing today to treat them worse than criminals, despite knowing that such women are in fact victims of foreign policy failures and the simple, indisputable fact that there were no safe routes for them. They are fleeing countries such as Afghanistan, which has barely had a mention today. As I said during the previous stage of the Bill, as of last month, 22 people had been granted asylum through the Afghanistan resettlement scheme. If that figure has changed, I would be more than happy for the Minister to address it in his closing remarks, but that is such a small number—unless of course the Government have changed tack and do not think there are women trying to escape the Taliban in Afghanistan and believe that they do not deserve safe routes through which to escape.
Not only will the Government refuse sanctuary to those who survive these horrors, but clause 11 will enable the Home Secretary to condemn them to indefinite detention. The Bill will therefore see migrant women who should have finally escaped persecution facing pregnancy and birth alone, without adequate medical support and with the fear of potential separation from their baby.
There is a wealth of information and evidence that the imprisonment of any pregnant women is wrong. We know that pregnant women in prison are almost twice as likely to give birth prematurely and are five times more likely to experience a stillbirth. Yet pregnant refugees are to be placed in circumstances worse than the already inhumane situation of pregnant women in UK prisons such as Manston, where there are outbreaks of illness and disease, reports of assaults and drug use by guards, and which last year was estimated to be detaining thousands of people arriving in Britain via small boats, some for as long as 40 days or more. No one should be detained in such places, never mind those who are pregnant.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives, and Maternity Action have all raised that healthcare in immigration detention is often very poor. In 2014, some 99 women were locked up in Serco-run Yarl’s Wood detention centre while pregnant, and research by Medical Justice found they often missed antenatal appointments—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady is out of time. I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
There are many things one could say about this Bill, and certainly my extensive backstory of dealing with asylum and migration issues means that there are many elements to which I think it is appropriate to draw the House’s attention. However, it is important to start by saying, as many colleagues have said, that we all share the aims this Bill sets out to achieve. We cannot allow a situation to continue in which, in the English channel, significant numbers of people are putting their lives at risk, and in some cases tragically losing their lives. We need to find a better, more robust and effective way of managing our migration process.
I would like to focus my attention in the short time available on a couple of issues of principle and a couple of practical issues that I hope Ministers will give attention to and that I am sure will be the focus of debate in the other place. I certainly commend the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I very much welcome the assurances that have been received in response to the work they have done.
I will start by mentioning age assessments, the impact of local authority duties under the Children Act 1989 and the need to ensure that, by the time this Bill completes its passage and gains Royal Assent, we have absolute clarity about what we expect of our local authorities and about how that process will interact with both this Bill and other legislation such as the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which imposes specific responsibilities on local authorities in respect of all young people, regardless of their immigration status.
Those who have read what the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has said—its report has been published by the Home Office on its website—will be clear that the scientific methods proposed envisage at best a minimum age range that could be assigned to an individual. It envisages that the Merton-compliant local authority age assessment process will continue as necessary and required.
We need to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where a local authority or other public body is judicially reviewed for failing to carry out its duties under, for example, the Children Act or the Children (Leaving Care) Act, while seeking to be in compliance with its duties in respect of immigration under the Illegal Migration Act. I am pleased, having met the Minister on this issue, that he has said he will return to me on a number of those points, but it is important, if we are not to undermine public confidence in the effectiveness of this legislation, that we address that issue expeditiously.
The second issue of principle to which I would like to draw the House’s attention is the impact of the so-called rule 39 point—the interim relief provided by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Brighton declaration some years ago was a recognition by the European Court of Human Rights of the concerns of a number of member states about areas where the actions of the Court had departed from some of the things perhaps originally envisaged in the treaty or specifically enshrined in law. Therefore, there is clarity that the Strasbourg Court and its judges recognise that there is concern about the operation of some of these matters.
However, it does seem to me concerning that the Bill envisages that the only circumstances in which such an interim measure would be relevant is where the Home Secretary considers it to be so. The default position is that we will always ignore our international law commitments unless we choose to follow them, and that is something that, as a party that seeks to uphold the rule of law in all cases and all circumstances, we should be concerned about.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that on my next point, which is our links with other countries and in particular returns agreements, I have had the benefit of a lot of research support looking at the United Kingdom’s relationships with other countries. Clearly, if we are not to create a situation in which significant numbers of people find themselves, at very significant taxpayer cost, in detention in the UK for long periods of time, we need to go immensely beyond what is envisaged in the Rwanda agreement and establish returns agreements, particularly with EU neighbours and with other countries as well.
It is my understanding from the assurances I have received from Ministers and the Government that all of those points will be addressed during the passage of this Bill. In order to achieve that, which is a wish we all share, I will be supporting it tonight.
Sir Chris Bryant
I hate the crossings. I hate every single aspect of the crossings. For a start, it is a traffic that turns people, in particular extremely vulnerable people, into a commodity. I have heard stories that traffickers often deliberately buy dinghies that are more dangerous, because they are hopeful they will be picked up by other people. That is despicable. They are deliberately putting other people at risk. They are also a sign of a failure of international diplomacy in other parts of the world, most notably in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. No doubt we will have people from Sudan in the not too distant future, too. They are chaotic and unregulated. There is no opportunity for justice or proper priority for those who are most in need, so I absolutely hate them.
Emotions run extremely high, most notably emotions on behalf of those who are being trafficked. They are in fear for their lives. They are terrified of being spat at, of being hated, of being in an environment they do not know and where they do not speak the language properly, and all the rest of it. Also, many people in this country watch with compassion that is mixed with anxiety and fear. That is why the language that we use is so, so important. I say very gently to the Minister that I really did not like it when, in a previous debate, he started using language about breaking into this country, and his using the word “cannibalise” today is very, very unfortunate. I know he is a decent man; I urge him to think about that language.
I do not, incidentally, buy the fundamental premise of the Bill either. If it really were trying to provide some kind of deterrent, it would have been thought through much more carefully. I do not believe that deterrent is really the matter of it. The push factors to the UK are far more significant than the pull factors in determining who ends up on a boat. Insofar as there is any evidence as to what the pull factors are, they are: that we speak English in the UK and lots of people are more likely to speak English than French, German, Italian or Spanish; that people already have family connections in the UK, so they think they might be able to base themselves here more easily; and that we have the rule of law. Those three things are not going to change.
I passionately dislike the Bill’s interaction with UK modern slavery legislation. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said it far more effectively than I can, but I just look at Government amendment 95. It is the worst piece of gobbledegook I have ever seen introduced:
“The Secretary of State must assume for the purposes…that it is not necessary for the person to be present in the UK…unless she considers that there are compelling circumstances…In determining whether there are compelling circumstances…the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
She is going to be in endless discussion with herself! It is just preposterous and completely undermines the good efforts, made over many years, to try to ensure we really can crack down on the traffickers. The best person able to reveal a trafficking ring is a victim of that trafficking ring. Without willing co-operation from those people, we simply give more power to the traffickers.
I also dislike the interaction with our international commitments. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), made the point earlier that, in essence, the Bill is asking us to say deliberately that a Minister can breach our international commitments. As somebody who has probably been the longest standing critic of President Putin in this House and has been saying this for a very long time, I do not want us to be in a very small group of countries with Russia and Belarus who have left the European Court of Human Rights. That, in the end, would do a terrible disfavour to British prosperity in the world.
Sir John Hayes
What the former Attorney General said—I thought it an extraordinarily contradictory contribution to our affairs—was that these judgments were not compelling. We are not compelled to abide by them—indeed we did not in respect of prisoner voting—yet he complained that there was something wrong with saying in law that we are not compelled to do so. Either we believe we are obliged to follow the judgments or we do not. The truth is that we should not be following them.
Sir Chris Bryant
There are times when we want to disagree with a Court ruling. The Labour Government certainly did over whether prisoners should have the right to vote. There was a lengthy process, and I cannot even remember where we ended up. I am not opposed to a disagreement with the Court—that can sometimes happen—but the Bill, and especially the amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and others, deliberately ask the Government to front it up with the European Court and the European convention on human rights. In the end, that will do us long-term harm. When we want to have a conversation with China about abiding by international rules-based order, it will be more difficult for us to do that when we are offending our own treaty obligations.
Labour MPs are often asked the perfectly legitimate question: “If you don’t believe in this Bill, what would you do?” As I said earlier, first, I want a comprehensive security treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I think that was what we always wanted at the beginning of the Brexit process—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was quite right to argue for it. I do not know why that is not on the table again now. It would solve many of the problems that we are seeking to address. Secondly, we should make it easier to arrest the traffickers. We need to devote more time, energy, money and international co-operation to making that happen. Thirdly, we need to process the backlog faster. The more people stuck in the backlog for months, the more the cost to the British people from hotels or whatever other arrangements are made. That is wrong.
Finally, I honestly do not think that anyone will be proud of this legislation in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. I hope that it will all be undone by a future Government. I do not even think that the immigration Minister will mention it in his memoirs.
Sir John Hayes
Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the greatest standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
Defending our borders and our ability as a sovereign nation to remove people who have no legal right to be here is a matter of justice—it is legally just and socially just. So is our right as a Parliament and a Government to say how many people should come here lawfully. I suggest gently to the Minister that he needs to look next at legal immigration—the record numbers of people coming here and the visa system that allows that. All that matters to my constituents. I humbly propose that it matters just as much to the constituents of Members of this House from Ruislip to Rhondda, and from Worthing to Walthamstow.
Every poll or test of public opinion says that the British people want to stop the boats crossing the channel. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) said, not only does that endanger the lives of the people in the boats, it offends the principle that I just set out that a nation is no nation if it cannot control its borders. Despite the rhetoric that we have heard, Opposition Members are paying lip service to immigration controls. I believe, as do the vast majority of the people I represent, that there has been too much immigration into Britain for too long. Immigration is a salient for them in a way that it is just not for many Opposition Members.
Outside this place, the shrillest opponents of this legislation and the fiercest critics of the Home Secretary include those who are deluded and those who are devious. They are deluded in refusing to accept the reality that many of the people arriving in the boats are economic migrants, gamed by dodgy interest groups and devious lawyers to support spurious claims exploiting the capricious perversity of European judges, who no one in my constituency chose and who are not accountable to anyone in this Chamber or this country. The trouble is that some people do not believe in the integrity of our borders because, in essence, they do not believe in the integrity of our nation.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, who I hope does believe in the integrity of our borders and our nation.
Laura Farris
I do. I listened to what my right hon. Friend was just saying about the problem of European judges, but can he refer to a case from the European Court of Human Rights where those judges demonstrated a lack of respect for our immigration laws?
Sir John Hayes
I gave the example of a case that was not about immigration but about something as vivid as the issue of immigration: prisoner voting. Successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—opposed prisoner voting, and in the end the matter was dropped. That is a very good example of where the European Court of Human Rights was dismissive of the traditions and character of how we do things here.
Sir John Hayes
I will not because time does not allow.
The amendment I tabled in Committee, which has now been brought forward by the Government, will put in place scientific tests to establish beyond doubt the age of claimants.
Almost 90,000 people have come here in small boats in recent years. It costs £6 million a day to accommodate them in more than 300 hotels. The Government and this House must re-establish the faith of the British people that we understand their concerns. It is as simple as this: we must deliver the legislation because we must stop the boats.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am interested to know whether I am part of the liberal establishment. As a working-class girl from Yorkshire, I am struggling a little with that concept. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is part of the liberal establishment that has been spoken about.
We on the Opposition Benches are clear that the tide of illegal migration to this country must be stemmed. We are also clear that the appalling rise in the number of people risking their lives in small boats to cross the channel is a damning indictment on this Government’s failure to secure our borders. Deflecting blame for their failure on each and every person who gets in a boat, at great risk to themselves, because they have no other option, is shameful and wrong.
I rise to support amendments 2 and 3, in the name of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), in the hope that Ministers will recognise the inherent injustice in this blanket approach and that they will reflect on the need to address the issue on the basis of what works, not what they believe will reverse their poor poll ratings on immigration.
The truth is that people are sick and tired of hearing from successive Tory Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries that they are finally going to get tough and sort out the mess that they themselves have made of our immigration system. If we want to address the growing cynicism in the country about promises made from the Dispatch Box that turn out to be hollow, Ministers have to give up their addiction to divisive and dangerous language and headlines, and get serious about the issue of illegal migration.
Yasmin Qureshi
Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am by the Minister’s comment earlier today about cannibalism, referring to refugees?
Kim Leadbeater
I agree wholeheartedly. I sometimes worry, on many levels, about the language used in this place and its impact on the outside world. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has made that point very well. We all need to think about the language we use, the words we say and the impact that they can have on people outside this House.
What we need is a thorough, workable and deliverable plan. That is what the Opposition have put forward, as the shadow Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), has articulated brilliantly this afternoon. What distinguishes Labour’s plan is not only that it is practical and tough on the real criminals, but that it is rooted in justice and fairness.
I note that the Minister has described the Bill as
“the morally just thing to do”.
I beg to differ. There is absolutely nothing fair or just about detaining children, and nor will the Bill do anything to deter the criminal gangs. Equally, as we have heard, imprisoning pregnant women and those with dependent children undermines the moral basis of the policy without achieving any benefit. That would be true whether or not the Government had a good record of protecting vulnerable people, either in detention or in Home Office accommodation, which clearly they do not.
Justice and fairness cannot be cast aside lightly. They are at the heart of what makes us all proud to be British. They underpin our values. They should be the guiding principles behind everything we do in this House. Unless the system is both just and fair, it will fail, like every other so-called crackdown that has done nothing to stop the boats. Not only will it fail to work, but it will fail to convince the public that the Government are serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigration. I therefore urge the House to support our amendments.
Vicky Ford
As I said on Second Reading, I support the premise of the Bill. Too many people’s lives are put at risk on small boats, and it is important to break the model of the people traffickers. We are also spending millions of pounds—indeed, billions—of our aid money on hotels for tens of thousands of people in the UK. That money should be spent on helping millions of people elsewhere in countries such as Sudan. I have just met representatives of Save the Children from South Sudan, who told me of their expectations that children who need help will be coming across the border. Without help, such countries will become even more unstable. More people will be forced to flee their homes, so more people will try to get on the small boats.
The small boats route is also extremely unfair. No country has an unlimited capacity to support asylum seekers. Those who arrive by illegal routes reduce and limit our capacity to provide the safe and legal routes that will help the most vulnerable. As I said on Second Reading, the introduction of new safe and legal routes needs to go hand in hand with closing down illegal routes. I am extremely grateful to the Government for listening to that point, and I have co-signed new clause 8.
On the issue of how children should be treated, I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and listening to our concerns. I know that the Minister takes the welfare and safeguarding of children very seriously. I understand that we must be careful not to create perverse incentives for people traffickers that force them to target even more children and send them on small boat crossings, but depriving a child of their liberty is a very serious issue.
We have very strict rules in this country regarding the protection of children. I am very proud of those rules, many of which were introduced by this Conservative-led Government. Depriving a child of their liberty can have a serious and long-lasting effect on their mental health, so there need to be very strict rules. That is why I am a signatory to amendment 183, which makes it clear that a child’s liberty can be restricted only for a very limited period.
I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my concerns on the subject and to those of other former children’s Ministers. I listened closely to what he said at the Dispatch Box. I thank him for his assurance that he will work with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to set out a new timescale on the deprivation of liberty issue. That timescale needs to be clear, and it needs to be set out in the Bill. It should be a handful of days, not a number of weeks. That is necessary to make sure that children are prioritised, because children are often those who are most at risk.
I agree that we need to be wary of the risk of creating an increased incentive for more adults to claim to be children. I recognise that some of those who claim to be claiming asylum are actually adults. However, roughly 50% of those whose ages are in dispute are children, and many of them will be very vulnerable. We need to ensure that there are short timescales for genuine, known children, but also that there is proper safeguarding for those whose age is disputed.
Another point of concern that has been put to me is that children who know they could be removed when they turn 18 may be at increased risk as they near their 18th birthday. They may be tempted to abscond from care, and may then fall into the hands of deeply worrying people and become subject to the modern-day slavery about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) speaks so eloquently. Members need to consider these risks, and to ensure that the Bill and the way in which it is implemented will not make vulnerable children even more vulnerable.
Liz Saville Roberts
New clause 1, which stands in my name, would give those detained under measures in the Bill the right to work in the UK after six months. I am pleased that it has received cross-party support and the backing of the Welsh Refugee Council. Words matter, and I hope to be as balanced as possible in my language, although there is much in this Bill that I find utterly abhorrent.
Those seeking asylum in the UK are currently effectively banned from working while awaiting a decision on their asylum claims. Permission to work is granted only in respect of jobs on the shortage occupation list, and then only after an asylum seeker has waited longer than 12 months for a decision, provided that the delay was not the fault of the asylum seeker. Once someone has been granted refugee status, that person has permission to work in the UK in any profession and at any skill level.
The Bill does not treat detainees as asylum seekers, and states that their asylum claims cannot be considered under the immigration rules. The spirit of new clause 1 is to do away with that false categorisation, and to recognise that these so-called detainees are asylum seekers. In doing so, it effectively removes the work restrictions that they would face if they were indeed classified as asylum seekers under the Bill. This builds on previous attempts to introduce a right to work after six months for asylum seekers, through proposed amendments in the other place to the Immigration Act 2016 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
The present ban means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 a day to cover almost all their needs, as they are excluded from mainstream benefits. That places them more than 70% below the poverty line. It cannot be right that asylum seekers are frozen in destitution while waiting for months, if not years, for a decision. Of the cases in the asylum backlog in December 2022, two thirds—nearly 110,000 people—had been waiting for more than six months, up from 44% of cases in December 2017, and that number will only grow as the Bill effectively freezes the asylum processing system altogether. If any Members present take issue with giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months of languishing in unsuitable accommodation and in poverty—that low, low-paid poverty—I say this to them: reject the Bill, and focus on rebuilding the asylum processing system so that people do not have to wait more than six months to receive an asylum decision.
We know that the majority of people who cross the channel will succeed in their claims to be refugees, and will eventually be able to work unrestricted once they have obtained their refugee status, provided that their asylum claims have been processed quickly and humanely. Asylum seekers have told me how the ban is affecting them. Seeye from Cardiff, for example, says:
“I am losing hope. All I want is a bright future. I am young, I can work. I am ready to start tomorrow and fund myself.”
Doesn’t he sound like a young Tory?
Overturning the ban has widespread public support, with a 2020 petition to the Home Office reaching 180,000 signatories and a 2022 poll showing that 81% of the public support people seeking asylum in the UK having the right to work.
Yasmin Qureshi
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent point. In fact, the Government should take this on board because we are told that one of the reasons for wanting to curb this is the cost to the public purse of maintaining people, but if they are allowed to work, we would not have to pay them to be in accommodation or pay them benefits. It is a win-win situation.
Liz Saville Roberts
Indeed it is.
We know that our economy is suffering from chronic labour shortages, and that is in part down to Brexit. Why can we not think out of the box? Why can we not stop looking at people as a problem and start looking at them as part of the solution? I know this because Ysbyty Tywyn in my constituency has closed its wards because it cannot get staff. I represent an area with an older demographic, and we cannot get carers. And yet we are a week away from the local elections in England and this is what we are talking about. We are not thinking sensibly in the 21st century. Meanwhile highly skilled asylum seekers are sitting idle in detention centres, eager to work and keen to contribute to our society but banned from doing so.
There are 1.2 million job vacancies in the UK. Businesses are crying out for workers, and 70% of businesses want to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. New clause 1 would allow those people detained for six months or more to apply for permission to work, including self-employment and voluntary work. This could do so much; it could be such a boost for our economy when we are suffering after Brexit. The right to work is a fundamental human right and it is crucial for the wellbeing of asylum seekers and their integration into society. It is also beneficial for the economy, as businesses want to be able to access the skills and experience of asylum seekers.
I call on the Government not to look at asylum seekers as a political threat but to see this as the thing that the United Kingdom is proud to do well. We should be proud to do this well and proud to hold our heads up high within the global order. These people are always a potential, not a threat, and we should be working with that potential as best we can.
Laura Farris
I spent considerable time in the last debate addressing the European convention on human rights, and the House will be relieved to hear that I am not going to do the same thing again today, but I will just say one thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is correct to say that we have no say on who sits in the European Court of Human Rights, but no MP has any say on who sits in the Supreme Court in this country either, and the reason that nobody can give me an example of the European Court interfering with a material change to our domestic immigration laws is because there isn’t one.
I want to congratulate the Government on reaching an agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on new clause 8, which I think gives the Bill moral clarity. The aim of this Bill is to extinguish a route, not a right. The Bill says that if someone enters the United Kingdom by small boat or any other illegal route, they cannot claim asylum now or ever, but we are maintaining compliance with our legal obligations under the refugee convention only when we can say in parallel that there are safe and legal routes that they could and should have taken as an alternative. It is already clear that this was envisaged by the Bill because it is dealt with in the provisions in clause 53 in the context of annual quotas agreed in conjunction with local authorities. It is plain that this is the direction that not only the United Kingdom but all our European neighbours are moving in, faced with the mass migration flows of the modern day that simply could not have been envisaged when the refugee convention was drafted.
I also want to talk about new clauses 22, 19 and 23 to 25. My first observation is how closely they resemble laws that were tried but ultimately failed under the last Labour Government. That is not me scoring a political point; this is difficult stuff. A lot of this is in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 but it never really worked, and here is why I say that this is important today. I want to talk about identification documents, mobile phones and age verification, all of which I have experience of in immigration tribunals. All these things boil down to one critical principle: that he who asserts must prove.
I refer the House to the evidence of Dan O’Mahoney, the clandestine channel threat commander, to the Home Affairs Committee in September 2020. Asked about the number of small boat arrivals who have identification documents, he said:
“I can’t give you an exact figure, but I can tell you that it is almost none—very, very close to none. Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, they will get rid of any sort of documentation …phones, SIM cards, anything…before they are intercepted by Border Force… They literally arrive in the clothes that they are wearing.”
I invite the House to contrast that with Operation Pitting. Every single person who left Kabul in haste in the summer of 2021 arrived in the United Kingdom with an identification document.
The lack of identification documents is a major problem, because it means the Home Office is entirely reliant on language tests and interviews to ascertain background facts. The best it can do is guess whether a claimant is genuine, which leads to a lot of economic migrants being given asylum when they probably would not have proved their case if they had documents. That has contributed to a huge degree of abuse in the system.
The same principle applies to mobile phones. In an era of mass technology, in which smartphones are as commonplace in sub-Saharan Africa as they are in London and in which 5 billion people use social media, it must be right that a negative assumption is reached about any individual who does not provide access to their phone as a way of establishing their identity.
I repeatedly dealt with age verification at the tribunal, the appeal tribunal and the High Court. It is not good enough to rely purely on a Merton-compliant test. Until very recently, we had no scientific method by which to establish a person’s age. Of course small children do not go through age verification, but the vast majority of children who arrive claim to be around the age of 17. We now have the technology to allow age verification, so it cannot be left as a matter of discretion or as an option for the applicant. If they say they are under 18, they must be obliged, as these new clauses require, to undergo proper age verification.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Before I begin, I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which outlines the support I received from the RAMP project.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). These amendments attempt to mitigate the damage the Bill will do to some of the most vulnerable people, by requiring reports on how it will affect the pregnant, victims of modern slavery and the health and human rights of refugees.
New clauses 2 and 3 would safeguard pregnant women and girls from removal. I have spoken to people working on the frontline in detention centres who feel deeply uncomfortable and ill-equipped to deal with pregnant women in such settings, so these amendments are vital. In fact, every woman who arrives in a detention centre is given a pregnancy test because staff recognise that where they work is not appropriate for pregnant women.
New clause 4 would support young people under the age of 18 in their interaction with the asylum system. This stands in stark contrast to the Government’s obsession with trying to discredit and dehumanise children, either by proposing bogus scientific assessments to determine their age—I say that as a biomedical scientist—or by bizarrely claiming that granting safety to children is some sort of pull factor. Lobotomies were once widespread across the globe too, but that does not mean they were scientifically valid, accurate or moral. Just because someone else is doing it does not mean we have to do it here, especially when the evidence for the accuracy of these tests is so poor.
It is a damning indictment of this Bill that my hon. and right hon. Friends have needed to table this extensive list of new clauses. The protections they are attempting to introduce are outstripped only by the litany of rights that this Government are attempting to remove from some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
The Government’s contemptible proposals have been tabled for entirely cynical reasons. We all want to stop the boats. But when the Government say, “Stop the boats”, it is not because they want to end the crisis in the channel, because they want to have safe borders where people do not die on them or because they want to end the suffering of people who are trying to come here to claim asylum. It is not even because they want to end the horror of people drowning as they attempt to reach refuge in the UK. It is because they are intent on vilifying people who have survived some of the most harrowing and worst things human beings can go through. I know that because I have spoken to many, many refugees and asylum seekers who have come here on boats. The Government are taking this approach because on these big issues they have no answers, so they are resorting to scapegoats.
It is clear that that has been an agenda long before this Bill was presented and that the Government are being pushed around by a very small and extreme group within the Conservative party, as we see when we look at Government new clause 22. It shamefully bars UK courts from interim measures to stop someone from being deported if they bring a legal challenge. The Government claim that they are considering fairness and the rule of law, and that that is a key British principle and value, but this measure sheds that. The Government are only too keen to undermine these principles if it helps them in the scapegoating of the most vulnerable. They want to bypass the European Court of Human Rights and harm Britain’s standing in the world, eroding the foundations of the international refugee systems and the refugee convention, all to appease their Back Benchers and throw red meat to a small portion of their base.
Yasmin Qureshi
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that part of this dog-whistle politics is about what the Conservative party deputy chairman said, which is that the next election is going to be fought on woke, culture and trans issues. Of course, stigmatising refugees is part of that.
Olivia Blake
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in this week alone the horrifying news about Sudan has reached us and we have seen the horrific circumstances being faced by not only British and dual nationals, but everyone there. While Britain is working hard to evacuate our citizens, we are not talking about safe routes for Sudanese refugees or a homes for Sudan scheme, and there are no dedicated resettlement routes and no numbers confirmed in respect of what countries the UNHCR should be prioritising in trying to help with what the Minister was outlining earlier. Even with Government new clause 8, the best this Bill could offer is a commitment to a report on safe routes, but with no actual, tangible commitments to open new ones. What are people fleeing war and persecution in Sudan, or anywhere else, supposed to do with that? By the time anything comes from this report, it will be too late for them, they will be on their way.
The amendments I cited earlier have been tabled because no serious attempt has been made in this Bill to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. That has been outlined well in the discussion we have had on modern slavery, so I will not add to that. The purpose of the Bill is the complete opposite of providing safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum. At their core, these proposals are not about helping anyone or making anyone safer, and they are not about making our borders safer; they are simply about attacking the rights of refugees, for the sake of electoral expedience and managing unruly Government Back Benchers. At the centre of this is a paradox: how can someone claim asylum if they are not on UK soil and they have to be on UK soil to claim asylum? How can they take a safe and legal route if there is no safe and legal route that works for them or is available to them? How can they claim safety in the first country they get to if that country persecutes them because they are LGBT, or they have a disability or religion—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is out of time. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to start by asking a big question: what is this Bill ultimately going to achieve? The European convention on human rights was introduced in the 1950s, and at that time I would have agreed with every word that has been said in respect of its application to the holocaust and to genuine refugees. However, what we have witnessed recently has been the phenomenon of this small boats problem, which does not just affect the UK. It also affects Italy, and Madam Meloni, whom I gather is coming over to see the Prime Minister tomorrow, is certainly going to have something to say about that. The problem is endemic and has to be dealt with.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry—time’s up. I call Patrick Grady.
Patrick Grady
I am not sure I fully completed my hon. Member for Stone bingo card there, but we certainly got most of the greatest hits.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is aware—I apologise to her if she was not—that a cross-party delegation of MPs visited the port of Dover last week with the Industry and Parliament Trust. We learned that in 55 BC illegal migrants from Rome, possibly led by Julius Caesar, were pelted from the White Cliffs with sticks and rocks. It is just as well that none of the Ministers from the Home Office was on that delegation, because it might have given them ideas for further amendments to the Bill, permitting the throwing of stones at craft attempting to land—or perhaps they would be instructing Border Force to seize the bronze age boat from Dover Museum in an attempt to track down any descendants of illegal migrants from 3,000 years ago.
We also learned about the Border Force processing facility in Dover. Despite the myths of an invasion of small boats washing up on beaches across the south of England, in reality most small boats are diverted directly from channel shipping lanes, where of course they are a major risk to larger vessels, and from there people are processed and sent directly to Marston or elsewhere. There is no invasion; there are no thousands of people prowling the streets. There are just human beings so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives to get here.
Although the provisions of the Bill are designed to be retroactive from 7 March this year, according to the Home Office website, there does not appear to be any significant change in the patterns of detections since the Bill was introduced, so if the Bill was supposed to have a deterrent effect, it appears to be failing from the start. However, that has not prevented the Government from doubling down on their hostile environment with the swathe of amendments they have tabled today.
In Committee, the Minister took issue with the number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), saying:
“At this rate, there will be more SNP amendments to the Bill than there are refugees whom they accommodate in Scotland. Instead of pruning the already excessive forest of legal challenges that we find, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) proposes a Kafkaesque array of new ones.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 777.]
Yet now it is the Government who have tabled a forest of amendments, with an amendment paper running to 73 pages. Of course, if the Government had tabled just one amendment, that would be more than the number of asylum seekers they actually seem to want to accommodate in this country.
If people are looking for Kafkaesque amendments, they should turn to Government new clause 26 and its consequential amendments. Picking and choosing which parts of the ECHR they want to apply at any given time betrays the true agenda of the Home Secretary and her cheerleaders on the Tory Back Benches—to take us out of European, and eventually global, human rights frameworks altogether.
The same applies to the Government amendments, which will undermine their own previous legislation on human trafficking and modern slavery. Those measures will be counterproductive; as the Trades Union Congress has said, the proposals will mean that,
“modern slavery victims who are trafficked…for exploitation will first be denied refuge, then returned to their country of origin and almost certainly back to the criminal gangs who trafficked them in the first place.”
Where the Government have been forced into making concessions, they are nowhere near adequate. I have heard from many constituents in Glasgow North who want refugees to be welcomed here, to have the right to work so they can contribute to our economy and society, as Plaid Cymru proposes in new clause 1, and to be able to come here by defined, safe and legal routes that are established and workable—not a vague pledge to publish a plan for a review of a consultation in a few months’ time, as suggested in new clause 8.
In fact, what constituents in Glasgow North want to see is the Bill defeated at Third Reading and scrapped altogether. Failing that, the Government should adopt the wide range of amendments tabled by the SNP, which aim to bring at least a vestige of humanity into the system, as our amendment 45 would do by requiring courts to make sure the Act is interpreted in line with our international treaty obligations, and to ensure it still resembles an actual asylum process rather than deportation charter, which is why we have tabled amendment 46 to delete clause 2 in its entirety.
I have asked this in this House before, but how often have Home Office Ministers, or their Faragiste fanboys on their Back Benches, sat down with asylum seekers and people who have come here on small boats to listen to their stories? There is an open invitation to any of them—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—to come to Glasgow North and meet the inspiring members of the Maryhill Integration Network, who have come here fleeing war and persecution and who, despite being met by the most hostile of environments created by the Home Office, are determined to make a new home in Scotland and make our society a better place for everyone to live in.
That is what an effective asylum system should be designed to produce: people in genuine need being supported and welcomed to rebuild shattered lives and strengthen our society as a whole. The Government’s amendments today to an already inhumane Bill move us even further away from that ideal. However, it is an ideal that constituents in Glasgow North and across Scotland will continue to aspire to, and it will be the foundation of our own independent asylum and immigration system when Scotland too breaks free of the UK’s hostile environment.
Danny Kruger
I am very pleased to have listened to this interesting and useful debate. I rise to speak to new clauses 22 and 17, which clarify the means by which a suspensive claim may be made to stop a removal from this country.
In that context, I will reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who made a good speech in Committee opposing the amendment that I had tabled to disapply the operation of the European convention on human rights as a means to prevent removals. Her point was that English law already includes protections that could be used in the same way as the ECHR. Of course, she is quite right: the jurisprudence of the UK has a set of remedies against unfair treatment, and they still apply. Indeed, they are clarified in the Bill.
In contradiction to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) was saying, the remedies for a suspensive claim against a removal are clarified in the Bill, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which is in our common law—we would have it even without European rights law. So this policy does not contradict that principle. Indeed, it strengthens it with a clear protection for people who would suffer harm by being returned to their own country or any country. Now that that relief is clarified in the Bill, we need to block the spurious use of other domestic remedies that are no longer necessary.
I thank the Minister and the team for their constructive engagement. I am very happy about where we have got to in the Bill. I will quickly explore the issue at the heart of the debate, which is not migration but the sovereignty of Parliament in making law, including laws about this essential issue. It has been established in recent times—particularly by the judgment in the case of Thoburn in 2002—that some laws in this country have more weight than others and, indeed, are not subject to implied repeal. They essentially have the status of constitutional documents. Of course, the European Communities Act 1972 had that status until Brexit. The other Act that has that constitutional status is the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires and enables the British courts to apply the ECHR. The doctrine of implied repeal does not apply to the 1998 Act either, and that Act requires the courts to follow the judgments made in Strasbourg.
I can live with anomalies. We do not want a hasty, destructive, ideological or populist rejection of the status quo in the legal arrangements of this country—that is not the British way; it is not the Conservative way. We can live with an eccentric inheritance from the post-war era. The problem is not when it is eccentric, but when it is deeply problematic, as it was in June last year, when the European Court put a stop on our removals policy. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, that was an occasion on which the European Court exercised an interference in our immigration policy.
I accept that that was just a rule of the court, which, in my view, we could have ignored, but the Government seemed to accept the legal advice that they were obliged to give immediate effect to that ruling. I am very pleased that new clause 26 will give the Home Secretary the power to disregard rule 39 interim orders from Strasbourg, but we remain subject to article 46 of the convention, which obliges us to comply with final judgments.
For me, there are two profound problems in our membership of the ECHR. First, we have an in-built ratchet with Strasbourg rulings and the treatment of the ECHR as a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of whichever cultural ideas are prevalent or appealing to the judges. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, those rulings form part of English law. At the same time, there is a willingness among lawyers in the UK to employ the ECHR to frustrate the will of Parliament and to refer the laws that we make to some higher authority—to an abstract morality rooted not in custom or the habitual allegiances that we have to each other as citizens of the same country, but in their own liberal fantasies.
I also believe in a higher authority that respects the dignity and value of every human being. Let us call it the natural law. I believe that that higher authority is the source of all our liberties and rights, and indeed of the ECHR and every other noble-sounding document in the west. It is the source of our morality, but the way in which that morality works in practice is not through abstract theorising from on high but through the accumulation of case law and the statutes passed in this place.
I do not propose that we come out of the ECHR now. I am suggesting that, if there is a further challenge to British sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament—be it in Strasbourg or through the British courts applying the convention—we have no superior obligation to remain in the ECHR. The superior obligation is to our own sovereignty and the supremacy of this place. This debate has exposed a difference between those of us who believe in nation states and the customary laws of nations, and those who believe in abstractions to be interpreted by unaccountable judges—whether or not they are in their pyjamas. I am content with where we have got to with the Bill, which I support unreservedly.
Robert Jenrick
I thank and commend right hon. and hon. Members from all parties for what has been a measured and thoughtful debate over the course of this afternoon. The Bill before us is probably the most significant immigration Bill in my lifetime; for that reason, it is important that we get it right. Today’s debate has centred on a number of significant issues. I will not reprise all my earlier remarks, having spoken then for the best part of three quarters of an hour and taken many interventions, but I will touch on the five principal areas that were discussed by Members on both sides of the House and attempt to provide any further reassurance that is required.
The first significant issue was the removal of minors. As I said earlier, the Government’s approach in respect of children is one in which we take the interests of the child extremely seriously. These are morally complex issues, and I and all the Ministers involved in the Bill’s preparation have thought very carefully about how we can protect children, both at home and abroad, as we have produced the Bill and the scheme that underpins it.
I hope that the ways in which we will approach the removal of children are now clear, thanks to the work we have done with several right hon. and hon. Members, including in particular my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). We will seek to remove unaccompanied children only in exceptional circumstances. As we have now made clear, the two principal purposes are for family reunion and for a child’s safe return home to the loving care of social services in their home country.
We have taken the issue of the detention of children extremely seriously, because we do not want to detain children. We will do so only in the most exceptional circumstances. The circumstances that we have now clarified in the Bill and in the debate, again with the helpful guidance and support of right hon. and hon. Members, are for the purposes of initial processing when children and families arrive irregularly in the United Kingdom in small boats or via other forms of clandestine entry, and then for the limited and defined purposes of removal from the country that I mentioned a moment ago. We understand the desire of many Members for there to be carefully thought through and limited time limits on detention. I hope that the amendment we tabled and my remarks today give reassurance that we will bring forward that regime and that it will be as short as practically possible.
There is a significant exception to that rule, which is, of course, for those cases in which there is a serious age-assessment dispute. In such cases, the undoubted desire to limit the amount of time for which a child is ever detained by the state has to be balanced against the equally important safeguarding issue of young adults posing as minors—indeed, not all so young, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said earlier with regard to the recent allegation about a 42-year-old posing as a minor. We have to get the balance right so that young adults do not regularly pose as minors and create an enormous and very concerning safeguarding risk for our young people.
Sir John Hayes
I rise simply to say that the engagement we have had with my right hon. Friend and his Department throughout this process has been exemplary. It has been a model for how good scrutiny can improve legislation. I thank him and, in particular, the Home Secretary for the stand they have taken.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and return the compliment. It is important that we in the Government listen to the expertise we have among Members from all parties. I hope Members will agree that that is the approach we are taking to these sensitive issues, of which age assessment is certainly one. I do not want to see a situation in which young adults are regularly coming into the UK illegally, posing as children, and ending up in our schools, in foster-care families and in unaccompanied-minor hotels, living cheek by jowl with genuine children. That is an evil that we have to stamp out, and the approach we are taking in the Bill will help us to do so.
The third issue that was the subject of debate and, again, a high degree of unity—certainly on the Government Benches, but perhaps more broadly—is the approach to safe and legal routes. We want to stop the boats; we also want to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to be one of the most respected countries in the world for the way in which we provide sanctuary to people who are genuinely in need. We are doing that already, as evidenced by the fact that since 2015, half a million people have come into our country legally on humanitarian grounds. We have safe and legal routes today, but I appreciate the views of a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including most notably my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
That has led us to the agreement that we will rapidly bring forward the consultation with local authorities that grounds the desire of this House to be generous with the reality on the ground in our communities and councils. Within six months, we will bring forward the report that will result from that consultation, and as soon as possible over the course of next year, we will set up or expand the existing safe and legal routes so that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) laughs at that—of course, Scotland could step up to the plate as well. Since she tempts me, I will just say that her and her colleagues asked for an extension to today’s debate, but as far as I am aware, only two spoke in it. Fewer SNP Members spoke in the debate than could fit into Nicola Sturgeon’s battle bus.
Alison Thewliss
Is the Minister aware of the fact that other SNP Members had put their names in for this debate because it was originally scheduled for Tuesday, but the Government changed the timing at the last minute?
Robert Jenrick
I find that rather unconvincing, given that so many were able to turn up earlier. It does rather reinforce the point that the Scottish National party’s approach to these issues is entirely performative: they talk the talk, but they do not act. On this occasion, we did not even get the talk.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
The fourth serious issue that was raised, principally by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was about our mutual desire for the good work they did in office to establish our world-leading modern slavery framework to live on, to continue supporting genuine victims—in particular, those victims of modern slavery who have been in the United Kingdom for a sustained period of time and who have been the subject of exploitation here, rather than in the course of their passage, whether in a small boat or otherwise. While it is clear that we will not be able to settle the matter today, I hope that my right hon. Friends —as they kindly said in their remarks that they would—will work with the Government throughout the continued passage of the Bill to ensure we get the balance right.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman—sorry, he corrected me earlier: the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Chris Bryant
My intervention is very brief: can I just suggest that the Minister does not move amendment 95? I do not think the House is in favour of it, and it will end up being removed in the House of Lords. It would satisfy both the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—who are nodding behind him—if he just did not move it.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to do that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the advice. The amendment to which he refers enables the Government to ensure that those individuals who are the subject of a police investigation, or are participating in a police investigation with the aim of bringing their traffickers to justice, can have that investigation conducted in the United Kingdom, or—if it is safe to do so—can have their contribution to that investigation conducted while in a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, and I must apologise to the Home Secretary, because I think I referred to the Immigration Minister as Secretary of State earlier in the debate.
Amendment 95 does not say that people who are participating in an investigation can be here in the UK and enabled to continue to take part in that investigation and provide evidence; what it says is that the assumption must be that they will be removed from the UK, and it is only if the Secretary of State reads her own guidance on compelling circumstances that she will enable them to stay in the UK. The amendment reverses the original subsection (5) of clause 21. It goes back on what the Government originally said they were trying to do.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend does not, I think, agree that Rwanda is a safe place for those who are victims of modern slavery to be supported. The critical point here is that of course we want to support those individuals, and we have no intention of removing them, whether home to their own country or to a safe third country, unless that is a place where there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that they are protected. That is the nature of the agreement we have struck with Albania and the one we have struck with Rwanda, which was upheld by the High Court and we hope will be upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is natural, therefore, that in many cases individuals can go to those countries and participate in any law enforcement activity from there.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady, but I thank her for her suggestions.
The last issue that was the subject of debate centred around the questions raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and others about how we strengthen the Bill, particularly regarding the interim measures. I will say again, as I said in answer to the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) that this ministerial discretion will be exercised judiciously and in accordance with our treaty obligations. We take international law and our treaty obligations extremely seriously.
I will not dwell on the Labour amendments today because, as in Committee and on Second Reading, Labour offers no credible policy to stop the boats. The truth is that tweaks to our system will not suffice. In an age of mass migration, only a significantly more robust approach can end the injustice of illegal migration. The totality of Labour’s policy on illegal migration is to accept more people into our country and as quickly as possible. That is weak, and it is also frankly dangerous. We have yet again seen today that Labour is decades behind when it comes to illegal migration. It is 20 years behind the views of the British public and 20 years out of date with its policy proposals. That perhaps comes as no surprise when the shadow Home Office team is being led by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whose own colleagues say should have left politics 20 years ago. One briefed the papers that
“she knows where the door is”.
Given Labour’s record on immigration, we can assume it is an open door.
While Labour Members are fighting each other, the Conservative party tonight has been united. We are united in fighting the people-smuggling gangs. Only the Conservatives are taking the tough but necessary action to stop the boats, because it is only this party that is ultimately on the side of the British public. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, from Worthing to Walthamstow, the British people want to stop the boats. The only way to stop the boats is to sever once and for all the link between crossing the channel illegally and being able to live and work in the United Kingdom. That, at its heart, is what this Bill does. Nothing else will cut it; we have tried it all before. The British people demand that we stop the boats, and only the Conservative party will do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I start putting the questions, maybe I can help with a little bit of process. I am anticipating five votes between 6 and 7 o’clock. The first vote will clearly take 10 minutes, but every subsequent vote will be eight minutes, so my strongest advice to everybody is to stay within the parliamentary estate in order that the votes can be taken as efficiently as possible. Owing to the number of votes, I will put the Tellers in place as quickly as I possibly can.
6 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 13 March).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 19
Credibility of claimant: concealment of information etc
“(1) Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (claimant’s credibility) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraphs (a) and (c) for “a passport” substitute “an identity document”;
(b) in paragraph (b) for “passport” substitute “identity document”;
(c) after paragraph (d) (but before the “and”) insert—
“(da) failure to provide to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, on request, any information or anything else required in order to access any information stored in electronic form on a thing in the possession of an immigration officer or the Secretary of State that—
(i) was found on the claimant, or
(ii) appears to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State to have been in the possession of the claimant,”.
(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) insert at the appropriate place—
““document” includes information recorded in any form;”;
““identity document” means any document that may be used (whether by itself or otherwise and with or without modifications) to establish, or provide evidence of, a person's identity or address;”;
(b) omit the definition of “passport”.
(4) In subsection (8) for “A passport” substitute “An identity document”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause amends section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 to provide for certain kinds of behaviour relating to an identity document or electronic information by a person who makes an asylum claim or a human rights claim to be taken into account as damaging the claimant's credibility.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Legal aid
“(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services) is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In Part 1 (services), in paragraph 19 (judicial review)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) Sub-paragraph (5) does not exclude services provided to an individual who is subject to removal to a third country under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, in relation to judicial review of a refusal of a human rights claim that—
(a) arises from Article 2 or 3 of the Human Rights Convention, and
(b) is made by the individual.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (10) insert at the appropriate places—
““human rights claim” has the meaning given by section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;”;
““the Human Rights Convention” has the meaning given by paragraph 30 of this Part of this Schedule;”;
““third country” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(3) In that Part, after paragraph 31B insert—
“Removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023
31C (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual who has received a removal notice, in relation to the removal notice (including in relation to a suspensive claim relating to the removal notice, and an application under section 44(4) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as regards such a claim).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
(3) In this paragraph “removal notice” and “suspensive claim” have the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(4) In Part 3 (advocacy: exclusions and exceptions) after paragraph 16 insert—
“16A Advocacy in proceedings in the Upper Tribunal under any of sections 44 to 46 or 48 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(5) In regulation 11(9) of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) (qualifying for civil legal services: cases in which merits criteria do not apply)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (d);
(b) after sub-paragraph (e) insert “, or
(f) in relation to any matter described in paragraph 31C of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023).””—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause provides for the provision of legal aid in respect of certain matters.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Electronic devices etc
“Schedule (Electronic devices etc) confers—
(a) powers to search persons liable to be detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal migrants), and to search vehicles, premises and property, for things on which certain information is or may be stored in electronic form;
(b) powers to seize and retain such things, and to access, copy and use information stored on those things.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause, and the new Schedule it introduces, confers power to search for, seize and retain mobile phones and other things on which information is stored in electronic form, and to access, copy and use that information.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Decisions relating to a person’s age
“(1) This section applies if a relevant authority decides the age of a person (“P”) who meets the four conditions in section 2 (duty to make arrangements for removal), whether that decision is for the purposes of this Act or otherwise.
(2) If the decision is made on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, P may not bring an appeal against the decision under section 54(2) of that Act.
(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if P makes an application for judicial review of—
(a) the decision mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) any decision to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom under this Act which is taken on the basis of that decision.
(4) The application does not prevent the exercise of any duty or power under this Act to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom.
(5) The court—
(a) may quash the decision only on the basis that it was wrong in law, and
(b) may not quash the decision on the basis that the court considers the decision mentioned in subsection (1) was wrong as a matter of fact.
(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) an immigration officer,
(c) a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022,
(d) a local authority within the meaning of that Part, subject to subsection (7), or
(e) a public authority within the meaning of that Part which is specified in regulations under section 50(1)(b) of that Act (referral of age-disputed person for age assessment).
(7) This section applies in relation to a decision of a local authority which is a decision within subsection (1) only if it is for the purposes, or also for the purposes, of the local authority deciding whether or how to exercise any of its functions under relevant children’s legislation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
(8) This section applies only in relation to a decision which is made after this section comes into force.
(9) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(10) In section 54(6) (appeals relating to age assessments)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and
(c) section (Decisions relating to a person’s age) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (decisions relating to a person’s age).”
(11) In section 56(1) (new information following age assessment or appeal), for paragraph (b) (and the “and” at the end of that paragraph) substitute—
“(b) an appeal under section 54(2)—
(i) could no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time),
(ii) has been finally determined, or
(iii) may not be brought as a result of section (Decisions relating to a person’s age)(2) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (age assessments relating to removal under that Act), and”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause makes provision about challenges to decisions about a person’s age where the person meets or may meet the conditions for removal from the United Kingdom under the Bill.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods
“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the effect of a decision by a relevant person (“P”) not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment of P where there are no reasonable grounds for P’s decision.
(2) The regulations may provide that, in the circumstances set out in the regulations—
(a) section 52(7) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (refusal to consent to scientific methods to be taken to damage credibility) does not apply, and
(b) P is to be treated as if the decision-maker had decided that P was over the age of 18.
(3) In this section—
“age assessment” means an assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;
“decision-maker” and “specified scientific method” have the same meanings as in Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (see section 49 of that Act);
“relevant person” means a person who meets the four conditions in section 2 (duty to make arrangements for removal).
(4) In Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (age assessments)—
(a) in section 52 (use of scientific methods in age assessments), in subsection (7), at the end insert “(See also section (Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods).)”;
(b) in section 53 (regulations about age assessments), in subsection (1)(a)(iv), after “method,” insert “the circumstances in which a person may be considered to have reasonable grounds for a decision not to consent and”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause contains a power to make regulations about the effect of a refusal, by a person to whom the Bill applies, to consent to the use of a scientific method in an age assessment. The regulations may provide that, in certain circumstances, the person may be assumed to be an adult. The Secretary of State will not exercise the power until satisfied that the scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent will be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (in particular Article 8 (right to private and family life)).
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights
“(1) This section applies where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure in proceedings relating to the intended removal of a person from the United Kingdom under, or purportedly under, this Act.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may (but need not) determine that the duty in section 2(1) (duty to make arrangements for removal) is not to apply in relation to the person.
(3) A decision as to whether or not to make a determination under subsection (2) is to be taken personally by the Minister of the Crown.
(4) In considering whether to make a determination under subsection (2), the Minister may have regard to any matter that the Minister considers relevant, including in particular the matter in subsection (5).
(5) The matter mentioned in subsection (4) is the procedure by reference to which the interim measure was indicated, including in particular—
(a) whether the government of the United Kingdom was given an opportunity to present observations and information before the interim measure was indicated;
(b) the form of the decision to indicate the interim measure;
(c) whether the European Court of Human Rights will take account of any representations made to it by the government of the United Kingdom seeking reconsideration, without undue delay, of the decision to indicate the interim measure;
(d) the likely duration of the interim measure and the timing of any substantive determination by the European Court of Human Rights.
(6) Where a Minister of the Crown does not make a determination under subsection (2), a person or body to which subsection (7) applies may not have regard, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (7), to the interim measure.
(7) This subsection applies to—
(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when exercising a function under section 2(1) or 7(2), (4) or (5) (further provisions about removal),
(b) the Upper Tribunal when considering any application or appeal under this Act, and
(c) a court or tribunal when considering any application or appeal which relates to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under this Act.
(8) No inference is to be drawn from this section as to whether or not a person or body mentioned in subsection (7) would otherwise have been required to have regard to the interim measure.
(9) Nothing in this Act requires the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to effect the removal of a person from the United Kingdom pending a decision by a Minister of the Crown as to whether or not to make a determination under subsection (2).
(10) In this section—
“decision” includes any purported decision;
“determination” includes any purported determination.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause provides that an interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights does not affect the duty in clause 2 of the Bill to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, unless a Minister of the Crown acting in person determines that it is to do so.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Interim remedies
“(1) This section applies to any court proceedings relating to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under this Act (whether the proceedings involve consideration of Convention rights or otherwise).
(2) Any power of the court to grant an interim remedy (whether on an application of the person or otherwise) is restricted as follows.
(3) The court may not grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of the decision.
(4) In this section—
“Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 1(1) of that Act);
“court proceedings” means proceedings in any court (including, in particular, proceedings on an application for judicial review);
“decision” includes any purported decision;
“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict).”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause would restrict the granting of certain interim remedies by a court in proceedings relating to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under the Bill.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8
Report on safe and legal routes
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a) prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the United Kingdom, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must—
(a) contain details of the safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the United Kingdom when the report is published,
(b) contain details of any proposed additional safe and legal routes which have not come into operation at that time,
(c) specify the routes within paragraph (a) or (b) which are or will be available to adults,
(d) specify the routes within paragraph (a) or (b) which are or will be available to children, and
(e) contain details of how routes within paragraph (a) or (b) may be accessed by persons who are eligible to use them.
(3) In this section—
“adult” means a person who is aged 18 or over;
“child” means a person who is under the age of 18;
“the relevant period” means the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes for entry into the United Kingdom and to lay the report before Parliament.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Accommodation: duty to consult
“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3A) insert—
‘(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.
(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) applies to accommodation including hotel accommodation, military sites, and sea vessels.
(3D) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.’”—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Alison Thewliss
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just passed a Bill for which the Home Secretary is unable to make a declaration under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that it will be compatible. Others have suggested that it will break the refugee convention, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention relating to the status of stateless persons. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that none of our constituents sent us to this place to break the law, and it seems to me that we have perhaps done so in voting for the Illegal Migration Bill. Given that we have a very special duty in this place to be guarantors of human rights in this Parliament, collectively and individually, can you advise what we might do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and forward notice of it. I can only respond to the bits for which the Chair is responsible, and I am content that the House has proceeded perfectly properly, but her comments are on the record.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you or Mr Speaker had any contact from the Leader of the House to indicate whether in future the Government intend to allow sufficient time for major pieces of legislation to be properly considered before being pushed through?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can only speak for myself—I have not spoken to Mr Speaker—but no one has been in touch with me.
Illegal Migration Bill
Thursday 27th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2023 - large print - (26 Apr 2023)
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(za) defines “illegal” and “unlawful” migration for the purpose of this Act;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead, seek, in the interests of legal certainty, to provide a definition of what amounts to illegal migration at the outset of this Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. It is a privilege to open the Committee stage of this important Bill. Before I come to the amendments themselves, there is one thing I wish to point out. Nothing that I may say in support of my important but relatively minor amendments is intended to undermine, or detract in any way from, the much more important and fundamental points raised by the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendments 2 and 4. I seek to reassure those in whose names those amendments stand. I am seeking to draw the Government’s attention to points raised by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its examination of the Bill.
Nobody can predict what shape the Bill will be in once it reaches its Third Reading, so it is as well for your Lordships to put all the cards on the table in Committee. Some will be more important than others, but one has to grasp the opportunity to put them on the table now. That is all that lies behind these amendments, and I hope that will be understood.
Amendments 1 and 5 deal with the use of words and the need for a definition. In its Short Title, the Bill refers to what it calls illegal migration, and so do the Explanatory Notes in their overview of the Bill on page 3:
“The purpose of the Bill is to create a scheme whereby anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom … will be promptly removed to their home country or to a safe third country to have any asylum claim processed. The Bill will build on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 … as part of a wider strategy to tackle illegal migration”.
It says that the purpose of the Bill, among other things, is to
“deter illegal entry into the UK”.
But when it comes to the Bill itself, the language changes. The purpose of the Bill, it says, is
“to prevent and deter unlawful migration”.
The question is: does this mean the same thing as illegal migration?
The committee noted on page 1 of its report that the Bill does not define “illegal” anywhere. On the other hand, the Secretary of State’s duty to remove a person is triggered when the four conditions in Clause 2 are met. This suggests that the right way to define the expression “unlawful” for the purposes of this Bill, and what “illegal” migration for this purpose means as well, is to refer to these four conditions, which is what my Amendment 5 does. The fact is that Bills come and go, and expressions of this kind can be and are defined in different ways. Indeed, the words are interchangeable, as the language of the Explanatory Notes and the Bill itself has demonstrated.
The purpose of Amendment 5 is to make it clear that, whatever might be said in any other Bill or in any other circumstances, all one needs to know as to what makes a migration unlawful or illegal in the case of this Bill is what is in Clause 2. This is all about legal certainty and the accuracy and use of the words, which is an important constitutional principle. That is why the committee has made this important point.
Before I move Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance as to how the provisions of the Bill are to be read and given effect. This follows another recommendation by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill, which was prompted by what we see in Clause 1(3) and (5). Clause 1(3) says that,
“so far as it is possible to do so … this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)”.
There is an echo here, which all lawyers will recognise, of the wording of the direction about interpretation given to the courts by Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but Clause 1(5) says that Section 3 of that Act
“does not apply in relation to provision made”
by the Bill. As the committee said, these are novel provisions and it is difficult to predict how they will be interpreted by the courts.
The Bill has been accompanied by a statement that the Minister is unable to say that the provisions of the Bill
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
However, the Government’s ECHR memorandum on the Bill appears to be more confident that the clauses it identifies as engaging with convention rights, taken one by one,
“are capable of being applied compatibly”
with the relevant ECHR articles. As for Clause 1(5), all that the memorandum says about it is that the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act
“does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights as set out”
in the memorandum. The Constitution Committee says that the Government’s position on this “requires further explanation”. I am sure that will be explored much further in the other amendments in this group.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 2—unless the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, wants to go before me.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, with some trepidation, I want to comment on Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. Under the refugee convention, anyone approved as a refugee has never been an illegal or unlawful immigrant, however they came to the UK. To define anyone as an illegal immigrant who may subsequently be deemed a refugee surely flies in the face of the refugee convention—or that is how I read it. I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a very good riposte to what I am saying, but if by any chance he does not feel he has, he may want not to press those two amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, in fact, the noble Baroness makes my point. What I am really saying is that those who are affected by the Bill want to know what it means by “unlawful”. We may not agree with it, but the Bill has a formula which is to be used and we need to know what it is. That is the purpose of a definition. I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness says about the convention, but it is about the need to understand the Bill’s use of the word “unlawful”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Is it not our job to ensure that the Bill does not come up against the convention?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendment 2, which is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will take just a little while. We had only six minutes at Second Reading and this group is key to the whole Bill. My remarks will follow on almost seamlessly, if I may say so, from those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
No, I referred to Amendment 2, which is the second one in this group.
Before I move to human rights issues, I want to make a couple of preliminary points. First, it is incumbent on this Committee to subject this Bill to very detailed scrutiny. It proposes to strip human rights protections from a group of people excluded from the democratic process. It is a core part of our justification, as an unelected revising second Chamber, that we do this kind of detailed scrutiny.
In the other place, there was quite a compressed timetable—that is an understatement. Second Reading there was expedited, only a few days after the Bill’s introduction. Instead of the usual detailed consideration and evidence-gathering in Committee, the Bill had only two days on the Floor of the House, during which its provisions were considered out of sequence. On Report, the Government published more than 100 amendments at late notice, dealing with both substantive and highly technical issues, many of major constitutional importance. Particularly in the case of this Bill, it behoves us to carry out intense scrutiny.
My second preliminary point was made in a briefing from the Law Society. It stressed the importance of the UK’s reputation for its commitment to the rule of law and international obligations, including human rights obligations, to our attractiveness as a place to do business. It says:
“Senior representatives of the UK’s biggest law firms have told us they are concerned about the damage non-compliance”
with our legal commitments
“could do to the UK’s economic competitiveness, by undermining the confidence of businesses looking to invest in the UK”.
I think we recently saw a reported drop in UK inward direct investment, and Germany has shot up the list. It is not just for us human rights nerds that international legal commitments are important. Global business places great importance on these issues too.
This is a perilous moment for human rights protections in Europe, as the war on Ukraine by Russia continues and Russia has been expelled from the Council of Europe. The UK’s reputation is strengthened by being not only a founding party to the European Convention on Human Rights but an active, leading member of the Council of Europe. It was therefore good news that the Prime Minister went to the recent Council of Europe summit of Heads of State and Government.
Now is precisely the moment for the UK to lead on the world stage in reinforcing basic human rights norms and international law, including the ECHR. Pushing this Bill through this Chamber when the Government cannot confirm that in their view, multiple provisions in it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, threatens our reputation as a country that upholds international law.
As has been noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Home Secretary has been unable to make a statement under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act that the Bill is compatible with convention rights. This is an extremely unusual step, and it means there is a high risk that the Bill will violate rights under the ECHR. Then, we have a bit of snakes and ladders. We have the Section 19(1)(b) statement, but in a Home Office Oral Statement delivered in the Commons on 29 March—which the Minister repeated here—entitled “Illegal Migration Update”, the Minister for Immigration said:
“Of course, as we reform the asylum system, we will continue to honour our country-specific and global safe and legal commitments.” —[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/23; col. 1017.]
In his letter to us on 27 April, the Minister said:
“As the Minister made clear in the House of Commons, the Government takes our international treaty obligations incredibly seriously”.
We have the statement with the Bill, but when the Home Secretary introduced the Bill, she expressed confidence that it was compatible with international law, as the Minister’s statements have said. However, her justification for being unable to make a statement of compatibility with the convention was that the Government’s approach was “robust and novel”. We are getting considerably mixed messages: on the one hand, the Government cannot confirm that the Bill is compatible; on the other, there are statements from the Home Secretary that she is “confident” and certain that the Bill’s measures are compatible.
How she can have that stated confidence—when she had to make a Section 19(1)(b) statement that she cannot confirm that it is compatible—is a mystery. We have a juxtaposition of different measures. If the Government cannot confirm that the provisions are compatible with the ECHR, it threatens our reputation as a country that upholds international law. I am sorry that I have taken a bit of time on this amendment, but it seems crucial to the whole passage of the Bill through the House.
Finally, I turn specifically to Amendment 2. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned, it would remove Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I remind noble colleagues that Section 3 places a duty on a judiciary to interpret, so far as it is possible to do so, all legislation
“in a way which is compatible with the … rights”
under the ECHR, which are incorporated into domestic law through the HRA. The effect of the provision in the Illegal Migration Bill is that judges will be unable to reconcile its provisions with our human rights obligations under the HRA and the ECHR. The only option available to the courts would be to issue a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA. However, that merely flags incompatibility to the Executive. The court cannot do anything about it; it just has to flag it, which puts the ball back to the Government to have responsibility to initiate measures to rectify the incompatibility.
The possible likely outcome of all this is that these cases will go to the Strasbourg court. Given that the UK court has already found that there is a violation, because it had to issue a declaration of incompatibility, it is likely that Strasbourg will find a violation, thereby putting the UK on a collision course with the European Court of Human Rights. It would be a serious breach of international law if the UK refused to comply with a binding judgment issued by the Strasbourg court.
All in all, I put it to the Committee that the Government have got themselves in quite a mess with the HRA and the ECHR. Removing the scope of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act suggests that the Government are in fact worried about the provisions of this Bill being incompatible with our international law obligations under the ECHR. Otherwise, what would there be to worry about? If the Home Secretary is “confident” et cetera, leave it to the courts to interpret the Bill’s compatibility with convention rights. If human rights compliance is truly sought by this Government, why is it necessary to oust the duty to do nothing more than interpret the Bill in accordance with the Human Rights Act—if the Bill’s wording can provide for that?
Removing this provision, Clause 1(5), from the Bill, as Amendment 2 requests, would go some way to resolving anxieties about the impact of the ministerial statement under Section 19 of the HRA, whereas retaining the application of Section 3 would help to uphold the UK’s reputation as a jurisdiction which upholds the rule of law and respect for human rights. That is what I suggest should happen.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4 in this group, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I have also added my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I have some thoughts on Amendments 1, 3 and 5 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, is partly duplicative of mine, but focuses specifically on international anti-trafficking provisions. In as far as it adds the EU anti-trafficking directive to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, I support it; however, I think we should settle on a single, holistic list of obligations that, crucially, includes the precious refugee convention and its principles of non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement, which the Government seem so intent on violating by this obscenity of a Bill.
I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I thank him for his explanation earlier. Contrary to the explanatory statement for Amendment 1, I cannot quite agree that this does anything for so-called legal certainty. To the contrary, it seems a rather circular amendment, in defining “illegal migration” according to the conditions for removal in the Government’s own Clause 2. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested in her very pithy intervention, as a matter of international law, someone who qualifies for protection under the 1951 convention can never have been illegal.
Noble Lords who have come to the Committee sensibly armed with copies of the Bill might care to compare its Short and Long Titles. It has become quite fashionable in recent years for Short Titles to become creatures of political spin, but parliamentary counsel guard the Long Titles—so crucial for scope, for example —rather more jealously. While the Short Title is the Illegal Migration Bill, and our graveyard humour alights on the adjective accurately describing the second noun, the Long Title refers instead to
“persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control”.
As the refugee convention was effectively the world’s apology for the Holocaust and the insufficient and inconsistent protection given to those attempting to escape the Nazis, the convention always contemplated some genuine refugees having to escape persecution and enter places of safety by clandestine means and in breach of ordinary controls.
That is why
“in breach of immigration control”
is accurate and appropriate for the Long Title and “Illegal Migration” is not appropriate in the context of refugees, who, as a matter of declaratory law, will always have been refugees, even before they were given their status—hence the excellent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
The probing Amendment 3 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, helps to draw attention to contradictions in the Government’s public positions around the ECHR compatibility of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the tin indicates one thing—that no statement that the Bill is compatible can be made—but aspects of the ECHR memorandum of ingredients suggest another. However, the medicine prescribed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is far too weak a remedy. When a Government are so intent on violating rights to protection from torture, slavery and death, allowing the same Government to issue guidance on interpreting their offending legislation is like handing burglars the keys to the house. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right to seek to remove Clause 1(5), which seeks to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which, as we have heard, requires that legislation be interpreted compatibly with the European convention so far as possible. That is why I added my name to her Amendment 2.
Amendment 4 in the names of the quartet of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and myself goes further. It does not just remove subsection (5); it replaces the whole of Clause 1 with the requirement that this legislation shall not require violation of any of the key international legal obligations that we fear would otherwise be violated by it, namely the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. I am very proud to stand with noble Lords from four corners of the Committee whose experience includes high-level legal adjudication, law enforcement, and Home Office ministerial duty. What brings the senior judge, police officer, Conservative former Immigration Minister, and human rights lawyer together around the amendment is our desire that the United Kingdom remains committed to the international rule of law.
As we heard, last week, alongside other European leaders, the Prime Minister signed the Reykjavík declaration. It begins:
“We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered in Reykjavík on 16 and 17 May 2023 to stand united against Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to give further priority and direction to the Council of Europe’s work … We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems. We reaffirm our primary obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as well as our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties”.
Mr Sunak said:
“We remain a proud European nation. And we must work together to defend the values we all hold so dear … Because we know what we can achieve together. Just look at this Council’s extraordinary legacy: protecting human rights, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting media freedom and championing democracy across Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War”.
Those fine words from the Prime Minister must not be contradicted by the Home Secretary’s illegal Bill.
Noble Lords will no doubt explore the many violations of our common and constitutional law tradition, as well as international law, via the anxious scrutiny of this Committee. At the very least, the Bill violates Articles 2, 3, 4 and 14 of the European convention in failing to protect victims of torture and trafficking and those at risk of death, and in allowing the Government to pick and choose which refugees from different countries it finds palatable from time to time. The Bill fails to protect stateless people and children in the context of its provisions on removal, detention, accommodation and age assessment. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, it amounts to
“an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be”.
This must be one of the strongest condemnations of a democratic and rights-respecting nation ever uttered by the commissioner.
If Ministers seek to argue that the Bill does not violate these various linchpin treaties, many of which the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating, they should have no problem with the requirement that the Bill be read in that way by Ministers, officials and the courts. If, instead, Ministers wish to argue that it is time to renegotiate these obligations, fair enough. Let them try to do so with such reserves of soft power as they think we have left. In the meantime, in contrast with Russia and other pariah states, let them respect the law.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support her Amendment 4 for the following reason. If I was a person in a country far from here who faced torture and very serious discrimination, possibly for his or her political views or opposition to the Government, or possibly for their sexual orientation which is an issue in quite a number of these cases, I might look up what the United Kingdom stands for in international law before I make my decision as to whether to seek asylum in the United Kingdom or some other country. And what would I read? With a couple of clicks on the internet, I would read exactly what is set out, or aspired to, in Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Baroness. In my view, that is the principled position to take.
I also understand completely—I think—the views expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope when, if I can be permitted to use a little bit of transatlantic language, he pointed out certain uncertainties about the Bill in the speech with which he opened the first debate.
I want to challenge the Minister to do something he has failed to do—I say this with respect, because he is known for his clarity in this House. I challenge him to return to the very first page of the whole Bill, where the statement under Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act is set out. The first sentence reads:
“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes … to proceed with the Bill”.
Does that mean, “I don’t know if the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Does it mean, “I know that it is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Or does it mean that some parts of it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and others are not?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have only a very brief intervention to make, but I want to speak to Amendment 4. I have two questions for the Minister which I think require serious clarification. First, do the Government accept that the Bill, if enacted, should be implemented in such a way as to comply with the convention rights that are itemised in Amendment 4? We are entitled to know what the thinking of the Government is. Do they intend that the Bill, if enacted, complies with convention rights?
The second question is contrariwise and actually is a suspicion. What is the purpose of the purpose test set out in Clause 1(2)? My suspicion is that the purpose test is designed to displace the convention rights if they come up against the Bill, if enacted. In other words, is the purpose test designed to override convention rights? I think this House is entitled to a very direct answer on both those questions.
For myself, let me make this absolutely plain to the Government. If Amendment 4 is put to a vote at any stage, I shall vote for it, because I believe that this Government and this country should comply with convention rights. If the purpose test is designed to override convention rights, I shall vote against it if given the chance.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords—sorry, we have had quite a lot of Tories, have we not?
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry, my Lords. I want to indicate that I think all of us in this Chamber wish, as the Government put it, to stop the boats. We all want to stop the suffering of people who are coming to this country in a particular manner at the moment. I am sure those of us proposing amendments all have that very much in our minds.
I support Amendment 4, which bears my name and others, and very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about it. I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a lawyer and a former Immigration Minister, and I have real concerns about any legislation that appears to threaten the important laws or agreements in place and signed in international forums by this country. I know that there are those who take a divided view between domestic law and international law. There are those who regard treaties, international agreements and conventions which bear the signature of the UK as being less important, and inconvenient when the Government and others promote domestic policies. However, if the Government wish to either disregard or, worse, discard, these obligations, I find that fundamentally unacceptable, and I hope that my noble friend, at least, as a fellow lawyer, would agree.
The Home Secretary has stated that there would be no problem in pursuing her new ideas. Apparently, she stated that she had consulted and secured the support of “the finest legal minds in the country”. As my noble friend knows, I asked at Second Reading whether he would list these minds, in case I wished to pursue some briefing or instruction, but I failed to get an answer to that, so he now has a further opportunity to let us know who the Home Secretary was referring to. The eminent lawyers I have consulted seem fairly confident, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that no asylum seeker can per se be described as illegal, and this worries me intensely.
At the Reykjavík summit last week, which was referred to earlier, a declaration was signed by all the participating states, including us, which stated great support for the international conventions. It said:
“We recall the increasing challenges of migration and the necessity to fight against trafficking and smuggling of migrants”.
I am sure we all agree with that.
“We commit to intensifying efforts to foster and improve international co-operation in this regard, while continuing to protect the victims and respect the human rights of migrants and refugees, as well as supporting frontline States, within the existing Council of Europe frameworks”.
I could not agree more—and, as I said, it was signed by the United Kingdom. It called for
“building a European legal community of shared values”.
That is something we should all agree with too.
It also referred to the Venice commission, which was referred to by my honourable friend the Member for Henley, John Howell, while this matter was before the other place. It is a legal body that is equipped to deal with interpretation of concerns over conventions, and the rule of law checklist is an inherent function of that body. That reference is important, in my opinion. As has been mentioned, our Prime Minister was very clear in his remarks at the end of that meeting. He was talking about how and why it was so important that our work with our friends on the continent went on to support the
“values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law”.
So I am confident—in fact, I am sure—that my noble friend will not only accept the amendment but will embrace the opportunity it provides to restate this country’s important position in the rule of law and our international relations. Those principles are so important.
I finish my remarks by pointing out that the amendment exemplifies our nation’s traditional unwavering dedication to upholding international law and being part of the development of international law. That is terribly important. By supporting the amendment, we reiterate our commitment to fairness, compassion and the respect for human rights, while remaining cognisant of the complexities and sensitivities surrounding the issue, of which we are all aware. By upholding these principles, we also strengthen our global standing, and that is surely something we ought to embrace ourselves. Whether or not the Minister embraces some of the things we are suggesting, I want to embrace that situation for our country.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It was an excess of enthusiasm in coming in after the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and actually agreeing with him on something. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, as well.
At first glance, this looks like an illegal Bill; it certainly looks as if it violates international law and suspends the Human Rights Act. Before I came into the Chamber today, I took some legal advice from a very fine legal mind—apparently a very sought-after Silk—and I was assured that the Bill is not unconstitutional or illegal. I would like to take another opinion on that because, quite honestly, I do not believe it. Even if it is legal—which I do not accept—it violates so many principles that you have to ask: how can we not be ashamed to let a Bill like this go through? It is all very well talking about legalities, but there are also such things as embarrassment and humiliation, particularly on the world stage. I think that is what the Bill offers, as other noble Lords have said.
What we are seeing, not just in this Bill but in other Bills, is the removal of our rights—all sorts of rights: parliamentary rights but also human rights in wider society. We have to be very careful about that. We, in many ways, are seen as the last bastion of humanity and respectability out there. People constantly say to me now, “We really thought the House of Lords was a complete waste of time, but we’ve changed our minds”. It is because we have been fighting this Government and trying to say to them that this is wrong. I think we have to say that this Bill is wrong.
The Government have tried to make us focus on other people. They have othered a lot of people: migrants, trade unions, even nurses, and of course protesters. They are trying to make us think we are providing solutions with a Bill like this, but we are not. We are not stopping the boats. We are not solving any problems with this Bill; we are creating more problems. I support all the amendments in this group. Amendment 3 is too cautious and I would like to see it strengthened, but Amendment 4 is very clear and strong.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I support Amendments 4 and 84; I also have a great deal of sympathy for Amendment 148. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I have been listening with great interest to the expert points raised by particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but also other noble Lords.
I am sure noble Lords will be aware that Clause 1, as it stands, is a narrative introduction that sets the scope and intent of the Bill as a whole. Crucially, it defines the purpose of the Bill as
“to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
I am sure we can all sympathise with the desire to make the migration system thoroughly orderly and predictable in nature, but I question whether this is plausible and whether what it entails is indeed desirable, particularly if it cannot guarantee compatibility with those international treaties, as we have heard. The sort of circumstances of catastrophe and persecution that drive refugees do not tend to allow for orderly or safe departures. I know this from my own personal experience but also from having spoken to many asylum seekers and refugees over the years.
The Government deserve credit for the design and delivery of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. My diocese has been delighted to welcome more than 50 Ukrainian guests into our scheme and to hear many incredible stories of welcome and community building. However, we should not forget the huge amount of effort and time that went into getting that scheme off the ground. It was not swift, and to be delivered at all it required an enormous redistribution of Civil Service and local authority capacity, to say nothing of the vast civil society contribution that needed to be harnessed. It is an incredibly labour-intensive model in its administration, neither sufficiently swift nor flexible to account for sudden or immediate crises, of which we are bound to see many more.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 4 and draw attention to my entry in the register, with regard to support from RAMP for this and later amendments.
It is vital that, in line with our international obligations, we uphold the human rights of men, women and children who seek asylum in the UK. It is worth remembering what Theresa May—no softy when it comes to immigration matters—said in the Commons:
“That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 592.]
Related to this is a warning from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her letter to the Lord Speaker that the Bill, as summarised in Clause 1, would
“provide an incentive to other states, in Europe and beyond, to follow the UK’s lead in evading and abdicating its responsibilities to people in need of protection”.
Given that much of the Bill is justified with reference to incentives, one hopes that this warning might resonate with Ministers. If other countries follow suit, we could well find that we have more, not fewer, asylum seekers trying to cross our borders.
Of the conventions listed, I will focus just on those relating to refugees and children, although I also draw attention to the concerns raised by Redress, which warns that the Bill threatens to cause the UK to violate key provisions of the UN convention against torture. I will not repeat the highly damaging verdict of the UNHCR, other than to note, as did my noble friend, the unprecedented strength of its criticism, reflected in the stark warning that the Bill amounts to an “asylum ban” in contravention of the refugee convention. Every briefing that we have received, including from the EHRC and the Law Society, echoes these concerns about the refugee convention. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and other UN rapporteurs, have urged the Government to halt the Bill’s passage so as to bring it
“in line with international human rights standards”.
However, according to the Home Secretary, such claims are “simply fatuous”. She put forward two arguments in the Commons to justify her position. The first is that while the
“convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK”.
However, the UNHCR explains that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary
“will not be required to assess whether removal”
to a supposedly safe country
“would be safe or reasonable for a particular individual or whether they will be able to claim asylum there. Individuals would have very limited opportunities to present evidence of the risks they would face”.
Thus, it warns that the removal duty placed on the Home Secretary
“creates real and foreseeable risks of refoulement”.
This is echoed by the UN rapporteurs. The proposed responsibility-sharing arrangements lack the required safeguards to protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.
Secondly, the Home Secretary prayed in aid Article 31 of the convention which, she argued,
“is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come ‘directly’ from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country”
is, she concluded,
“therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 580.]
However, the UNHCR is clear that it is not consistent. Its legal observations on the Bill are explicit:
“Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt ‘coming directly’”.
As the EHRC points out, because of geography, “direct” routes to the UK are rarely available. Exploiting our geographical position to abdicate responsibility for asylum seekers shames us as a country. I therefore repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading: can the Minister explain why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with supervisory responsibility for it? That body was recently described by another Lords Minister as “a key partner”.
The UNHCR also warns that
“The Bill is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child … because of the many ways it threatens or undermines the safety and welfare of children”.
I will not go into detail here, because a number of amendments specific to children will follow, but it is worth noting now that, in the view of UNICEF, which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to uphold the UNCRC and promote the rights and well-being of every child, children should be removed from the scope of the Bill in order to uphold the Government’s
“duties to act in the best interests of the child”
as set out in the UNCRC. Similarly, the Children’s Commissioner, who has demonstrated a passionate concern about the Bill’s implications for children, has warned that it
“would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of children’s rights treaties”.
The equality impact assessment, which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading, assures us that
“the Home Office will continue to comply”
with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
“to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them”.
As UNICEF reminds us, this duty was enacted in order to implement the UNCRC “best interest” requirement. Yet, the equality impact assessment tries to wriggle out of the duty by arguing that:
“The duty does not mean that it is the only factor that must be considered”.
In effect, it is being treated as a secondary rather than a primary factor, an issue to which I will return in a later group. We still await the child rights impact assessment called for by the Children’s Commissioner as essential to ensure consistency with the best interest requirements. It was promised “in due course” in a Written Answer on 17 May, so where is it?
Relevant here too is the position of the devolved nations. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has warned that the Bill could contravene the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and Windsor Framework in a number of ways. Has the Minister read its critique, and will the Government be publishing a response to it? The Welsh Civil Society Forum points out that Wales’s “child first, migrant second” approach, in line with its incorporation with the UNCRC, risks being undermined. As the Constitution Committee points out in its critical report on the Bill, while
“international relations are reserved matters … observing and implementing international obligations are devolved”.
What is the view of the devolved legislatures?
In conclusion, we must take note of what national and international human rights bodies are saying about this Bill. To echo a point made by other noble Lords, if the Government genuinely believe that the Bill meets the obligations in the conventions listed in the amendment, why not accept it now? Refusal to do so will only reinforce the belief of the UNHRC and others that this Bill marks the abrogation of the UK’s global responsibilities.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I would happily support all the amendments, although I would prefer Amendment 4, which I think expresses it more accurately, perhaps, than the others. I only really want to make one point because so many points have been made with which I entirely agree and they are almost unanimous across the Committee, as perhaps the Committee is noticing. We heard from other speakers that the Prime Minister put his name to that convention or treaty earlier in Reykjavik in which he is supporting international conventions. The Minister in the other place spoke about caring about international conventions. The question I want to ask the Minister is: looking at this Bill, looking at how it has been pulled apart in Clause 1, does the Minister really feel able to say that the Government care at all about international obligations?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I want to comment on the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford just now. She made a very important point which the Committee should take note of. She said that the amount of work that went into the programme to deal with people fleeing Ukraine was significant and she praised that. She understood from her experience the amount of effort that the Home Office made in that particular case.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not having been able to participate in the Second Reading of the Bill. I support Amendment 4 very strongly because I believe it goes to the heart of the problems presented by the Bill.
The list of the international conventions which we should not infringe is pretty long and very important. I will start with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is perhaps sometimes a little overlooked in debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spent some very valuable time explaining why the Bill will contravene some of our obligations there. I had the honour of sitting beside the late Baroness Thatcher on the day she signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child— 28 September 1990. I can remember that as it is my birthday. I do not think she would have been terribly happy with legislation that cut across an international convention she had signed. I would like to hear from the Minister when he winds up how he answers the criticisms made by UNICEF, which is the body set up by all of us to adjudicate whether or not countries are living up to their obligations under the convention. I would like him to answer the question of the areas of the Bill which appear to be in contravention.
Then there is the refugee convention, which has been referred to on several occasions. The Minister has tried on previous occasions to say that there is nothing in the refugee convention being countered by the Bill, but I am afraid that, like many other statements he has made on the matter, it is a bit like the Red Queen in Alice. He is saying, “It is so because I say it is so”; that is not usually a convincing argument. I would like to hear from him which explicit provision of the convention allows us to extinguish the right of someone on our soil to claim asylum.
Of course, we have the right to reject that claim; if we do so, and if they cannot be sent back to their country of origin due to a risk of torture and death, we have to find an alternative place to send that person. I would like to hear what explicit provision in the refugee convention permits us to extinguish the right to claim asylum—not to have it, but to claim it.
A lot has been said about the European Convention on Human Rights. I will not weary the Committee with much more, except to say that the route down which the Government will go seems clear. They might say that they do not intend to get into a position of confrontation with the European court and so on, but they are either bluffing—and bluffing does not usually work terribly well—or they are setting off down a slippery slope, which will lead us into direct confrontation with the European Convention on Human Rights and with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
If we do that, we put at risk a substantial and extremely important chunk of the trade and co-operation agreement with the European Union. For that to fall away would be to have jumped out of the Northern Ireland protocol pan into the fire of losing a large chunk of justice and home affairs legislation, on which we worked together with the European Union.
Why do all these international complications matter? I would suggest that they matter a great deal because our Ministers—I applaud them for it—are standing at the Dispatch Box and going to international meetings, and they are saying that Britain stands for the rules-based international order. We are spending a lot of money and providing a lot of weapons—quite rightly so—to Ukraine to uphold the rules-based international order; but the list of obligations in Amendment 4 is a substantial part of the rules-based international order. If we contradict those obligations, what credibility will we have when we go around the world trying to uphold that rule? Not much, I would think. I would not fancy going to the countries of the global South and saying, “You really must take a stronger line on Ukraine”, to be told, “You say you are supporting the rules-based international order; well, here is a list of areas where you are breaking it”.
This is a serious matter that goes way beyond the responsibilities of the Home Office itself. Like others who have spoken in this debate, I do not wish for one minute to suggest that unlimited immigration is a good thing—that we do not want to stop the boats and so on. That is, frankly, not serious; it is just debating. I hope that, when the Minister replies to this debate, he will take on some of these international points and answer them in detail, with precision, and in a way that can convince us. Until that point in time, I remain a strong supporter of Amendment 4 and hope that it will stand in the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not get to speak at Second Reading. I misread the Order Paper and thought that the day started with Questions. However, I listened to all the speeches and I certainly got a sense of the mood of the House; I note that, perhaps, that mood is at odds with the mood beyond the House. A previous point was made about unanimity; well, unanimity can be a cause for celebration but it can also be an echo chamber.
However, there are specific problems in the Bill that undoubtedly need to be tackled during scrutiny in the House of Lords. They need to be tackled if the Government are to fulfil their promise to the electorate to get to grips with controlling the borders of our country—controls that people feel are being flouted by an inability to stop the small boats. If this House can ensure that the Bill works, all to the good.
One aspect of that is that we are going to need some clarity about what and who will be affected by the Bill, and why. In that context, I am sympathetic to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because it is a valiant attempt to provide a definition of illegal and unlawful migration and it could be helpful in improving the public debate on the issue, which often gets in a muddle. So often when the issue of channel crossings arises and people say that they are illegal crossings, they are scolded and told that they are not illegal and that they ought to know the law better. If there is a way of clarifying what the law is, all to the better, because that can be frustrating. Many people feel they are being gaslit on the question of the law. Amendment 1 may give us some clarity, but achieving such clarity probably cannot be done just via definitions.
There is certainly an impression outside this House— I am sure that people will put me right—that whole swathes of lawyers, along with NGOs and their legal advisers, provide those in the boats with legal get-out clauses and exemptions such that, frankly, it looks like an organised system to game the system, and that is coming not from the people in the boats but from the legal minds that are sympathetic to their cause.
I can completely understand why anyone from many of the countries that they are travelling from would want to live in the UK and to improve their circumstances, but by any reasonable definition, many or at least some of the people in the boats are not refugees in need of asylum, even if they are desperate to improve their standard of living to get away from countries that they do not want to live in. I understand that they can be encouraged to follow a script to find a way to stay in this country—we can empathise with the desire to do that—but we can also note that, frankly, that tests the bounds of legality, and in the process there is a serious danger of discrediting, for example, what we mean by modern slavery, which I think is being exploited, and what we mean by legitimate asylum status.
I wonder what the noble Lord, Lord Best, would make of the legal rows that happen within the legal and judicial community about definitions—what words mean. It is not as though if you put it down it is always clear. We keep hearing about eminent lawyers, fine minds and so on. Believe it or not, among those fine minds, there are eminent lawyers who disagree with each other. I listened to a lively row between two fine, eminent legal minds about the legal interpretation of Article 31 of the refugee convention. One read it to say that refugees must come directly from a place of danger —that is, not France—present themselves immediately, show good cause for their illegal entry and so on. Then the other person explained that coming directly, among some judges, would mean having come through other countries. Anyway, the row went on and I am not saying I understood it all, but it is not as though, every time, great legal minds give a sense of legal certainty. All this legal confusion can and does lead to cynicism that people are illegally breaching border controls, and that illegality is not being tackled. There is a danger that this can discredit the rule of law itself. I certainly agree with the shadow Immigration Minister, Stephen Kinnock, who has talked about the whole process being slowed down and clogged up by legal challenges and the problems that that causes.
In a way, my question to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope is: even if we establish a clear legal definition, how do we tackle the various loopholes and spurious claims that can create incentives for illegality which we cannot deny happen? Adults claiming that they are children when they are adults in order to stay, destroying papers proving country of origin and so on—are we just to say that that never happens?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that this country should depart from treaty obligations without much of a qualm?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Having no qualms is something that I would never do, but I am also suggesting that having qualms, or using those qualms, to undermine what the British public would like to do is something that other people should have qualms about. I think that people are tearing their hair out outside of here being told, “You cannot do that; you may have voted for that, but that cannot happen”. When international treaties are used in that instrumental way—which is the way I think they are being used—that is difficult.
May I ask noble Lords to put aside the specifics of this Bill just for one moment? I know that people are very emotional about this Bill, but what if, on another topic, the UK Government—perhaps another Government, not this one, whom more people in this House might be sympathetic to—brought in a different Bill? Just imagine if such a worthy Government, with a popular mandate, tried to bring in a radical, novel, innovative law; for example, enhancing workers’ rights or improving women’s reproductive rights—things that I would support. Just imagine if that Government tried to bring that Bill in and it got to the Lords, where they were told, “You cannot do that because there are all sorts of international treaty clauses that prohibit you doing it”. Imagine your frustration: would you break your promise to the electorate in that instance? I just want us to acknowledge that asking the Government to break a promise on the small boats—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Would the noble Baroness like to remind the Committee which limb of the constitution takes responsibility for negotiating and revising treaties on the world stage? Is it the judiciary? Are they the wicked people who run off, committing us to all these international obligations? Is it parliamentarians who go and negotiate these instruments that she is finding instrumental, or is it the Government who negotiate, renegotiate and, in some cases, even walk out of international obligations?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not think there are evil people involved in this and I have not gone down the moral/immoral route. I am concerned, genuinely, with ensuring that the electorate and citizens of this country do not feel that parliamentary discussion uses international treaties as an excuse to not do what they anticipate that Parliament was asked to do. For example, this could be about the abolition of the Vagrancy Act. Let us be honest; a lot of promises have been broken recently. I have heard excuses made for why we have not yet abolished that Act. I have heard excuses for why we can no longer get rid of tuition fees, and for why leasehold will not be abolished—
Lord Balfe (Con)
The noble Baroness will recall that we had a referendum to leave the European Union. Many of us opposed that, but it was the clear will of the democracy of this country that we left. Surely, on these international obligations that we are saying we are bound by, if the demos—the people of Britain—feel that they wish not to be bound by them, that is perfectly legitimate. We have to find a way to carry the wishes of the people into legislation and not use international agreements to say that the wishes of the people must be ignored.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I am coming to an end. I understand the noble Lord’s point and I am endeavouring to explain that I think those international agreements are being used in a particular political way on this issue. I have suggested that breaching promises to the British electorate—I was trying to give some examples across party lines, so that nobody would think I was having a go at any one party—is leading to cynicism and bitterness in the electorate. The low turnout at the local elections was an indication of the fact that many people feel politically homeless.
I do not necessarily support the Bill. I want it to be scrutinised by this House, but I felt that the amendments I was referring to were almost avoiding scrutiny by simply ring-fencing the whole nature of the Bill and saying, “You can’t do that because of international treaties”. That would seem to render us even trying to scrutinise the Bill a waste of time and it will lead to even more cynicism about the lack of democracy. That is my point and it has nothing, as it happens, to do with Brexit or the EU. Although the desire to control one’s borders and one’s laws was undoubtedly part of that, I was not making that point in this instance.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I think it is this side.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Speaking independently, I think it is this side, but I will give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and therefore I will be brief. I am not a lawyer, but I come to these matters from a very personal perspective.
I stand here as someone who, for most of my life, has faced discrimination and illegality. Why? Because the views of a majority were used against people like me enjoying the equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination. I believe it is incumbent on anyone in public life to challenge public opinion, to lead public opinion and to have the courage to do the right thing for the long term, and never follow the short term.
I am grateful for the many briefings I have received on this from the Refugee Council, the Red Cross, the Law Society and many other eminent organisations. I think it is the first time that I have read from such reputable organisations that a Bill should be rejected on grounds of legality and constitutionality.
I particularly welcome Amendment 4 in this group because it states, quite rightly, our legal obligations. It neuters the power of Clause 1 to mandate that the rest of the Bill be in conformity with what I believe is an attempt to deny the right to seek asylum and refuge in this country.
I am lucky that I was born in the United Kingdom. I have to stand back and say: what if I had not been? What if I had been born in a country where I could not be myself, love someone of the same sex or have a different political opinion or a different religion? What if I was that person? What would I do to value my family, my life or my liberty? I would seek refuge.
To leave your home is not an easy option. I say to the Government: do not represent it as a rush through Waitrose with a three-wheeled shopping trolley. It is about life and death. Yes, there are young men who have the courage to step into a leaky boat at the end of their journey and cross the English Channel. They cross the English Channel so that they can find a place where they might belong, where they might be able to use the language or learn the language or seek out others who have similar cultural and social values. What about them, coming to earn money to send back home to liberate their families from poverty and oppression? Are they not worthy of being given the right to a fair hearing and the equality of the law?
Finally, as I said, I was born in the United Kingdom, but I am told that my family left Spain as Jews in the 16th century and travelled across Europe for the centuries that followed in search of refuge—in search of asylum. Some ended up in Ireland, where they had enough of persecution because of their religion and converted to Roman Catholicism. That branch of my family came here, and I come from that branch of the family. When I was old enough to understand that my religion was being used against me to deny me my rights and to deprive me my place and my right to love, I became a born-again atheist.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the speeches she had heard. She might have heard me refer to a brilliant speech in a play by Shakespeare, which I am not going to give to your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
It is a brilliant speech, which reminds us that what was done hundreds of years ago is still being done: othering. “You bid that the strangers be removed”. These strangers have made their way from Calais to Dover to London.
“Imagine you are the stranger, with your children upon your back, your family at your side, your belongings at your feet. Imagine you are the stranger and bid that they be removed and show your mountainish inhumanity”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col 1849.]
That is what these amendments address and if, at some later stage, Amendment 4 is pressed, I will have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the personal and moving speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. One always has to bear in mind the personal nature of many of the discussions and speeches we are hearing today.
I share one thing with the noble Lord: like him, I am not a lawyer. Therefore, to talk about the rule of law—which, in essence, is what this group of amendments is about—is to put one’s head into the legal lion’s mouth, but I am proposing to do that because I think that some important points need to be made from outside the courtroom. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, particularly on Amendment 4, I will set in context my strategic support for the Bill and the direction of travel, which I explained at Second Reading, because it will colour the background to the remarks I will make now and the remarks I hope to make in future stages of the Bill.
We are meeting on a very important afternoon. In 2021, we gave the right to remain—not the right to enter—to 504,000 people. That is equivalent to a city the size of Cardiff. Tomorrow, at 8 am, the ONS will release the figures on the right to remain for 2022. Unless the press has got it completely wrong, we will have given 700,000 people the right to remain in this country in one year. That is equivalent to a city the size of Newcastle. There must be a serious question as to whether that rate of population growth is sustainable, particularly within the confines of an already pretty crowded and small island.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is not in his place. Although we had many confrontations on the borders Bill last year, one thing we could agree on—and I suspect that there will be general agreement in Committee—is that people who are here legally, and who have legal rights to come here, need to be welcomed and given all the advantages and rights that we enjoy. The creation of two classes of citizens would surely be fatal for our country and our society. So, when we allow people to come here permanently, we take on a considerable debt requirement for investment in various aspects that make our lives suitable and happy.
The right reverend Prelate and I would also agree, I think, that, when these rights are being given, responsibilities are simultaneously imposed. If you wish to take out of our society, you must put back in —as indeed we all must. But, if the Committee accepts that we cannot, with advantage, build a Cardiff one year, a Newcastle the next year and so on into the future, we have to find ways to restrict the inflow. By the way, the unofficial figures for the first four months of this year will show higher than 700,000 if it goes on at that rate. The 67.3 million people of our settled population—18% of whom come from minority groups —deserve no less. Therefore, as I listen to noble Lords explaining how the Bill should be removed, I think they need to think about how we tackle the question of a country which has taken on 1.2 million people— 2% of its population—in the last two years.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I entirely accept, and everyone who has spoken so far has agreed, that we have to control migration. I do not think there is any argument about that, but does the noble Lord accept that of that 700,000 last year, or whatever the number turns out to be exactly, the Bill will cover only 45,000? The Bill is not about overall immigration.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The most reverend Primate is exactly right: we have failed to start the conversation across the country as to what the number we can reasonably absorb is. Once we have had that conversation, the second stage of the conversation is: how does that number divide up between, as the most reverend Primate has just referred to, people who are coming here to fulfil jobs we cannot do and people who are coming here because they have money or ideas or are brilliant academics? That way, the people of this country would have some understanding of what is in store for them. I certainly accept that 40,000 people—but it may be 80,000 people—is only a fraction, a small part, of the problem that we face.
I turn, without further delay, to the rule of law. I need to begin by stating that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the rule of law, a rule of law that interprets the views of Parliament and provides the framework under which our society can operate with confidence, our freedoms are protected and our property rights are respected. Indeed, at various times since I joined your Lordships’ House, we have had debates on the importance of the rule of law which I have been pleased to participate in. At this point, Members of your Lordships’ House who are of a judicial turn of mind will no doubt be pleased by what I have been saying. I am afraid that what I am about to say is going to be rather less acceptable.
As I have explained, I am not a lawyer, but I think the rule of law is too important to be left entirely to lawyers to speak about and interpret; there are wider societal consequences. I do not wish to get involved in legal niceties and drafting. I have heard the Government’s view, expressed by my noble friend the Minister, that the UK will be in compliance. I have heard endless briefings about how the UK will not be in compliance. Let me explain from a non-lawyer’s point of view what I think the man on the Clapham omnibus thinks, which is that the rule of law is not a stand-alone, immutable entity. To be effective and accepted, it needs to be well integrated into the civil society which it seeks to protect. Specifically, in my view, to carry public confidence the rule of law needs to meet four tests: it needs to be relevant; it needs to be open to scrutiny; it needs to be applied in accordance with the original purpose of the law; and it needs the informed consent of the British people. I shall deal briefly with those points.
The first is relevance. Of the list in Amendment 4 of five conventions, two are 70 years old, one is 60 years old, one is 30 years old and only one was signed this century. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, proudly read them out. In 1950, in the aftermath of the appalling events of the Second World War, the challenge of refugees, in terms of numbers, scale and distance, bears no relation to the situation we face today. Of course, I accept that there are areas of read-across from 1950 to today, but to see a direct comparison in every aspect stretches public credibility.
The second is openness and scrutiny. Again, as a non-lawyer, I expect there to be open hearings, with pleadings by both sides, followed by a detailed reason for reaching a particular decision by an identified judge or judges. I am not clear that this has invariably been the situation in some of the key aspects that form the background to the Bill.
The third is applicability. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Modern Slavery Act—which is not on the list in Amendment 4—but now I see it being misused as a means to frustrate the proper operation of our immigration system and so devalue and undermine the original purpose of the Act. I find it hard to believe that the increase in case load from an anticipated 3,500 cases per annum to the current 17,000 cases last year can all be based on genuine circumstances.
Fourthly and finally is informed consent. I return to a point I covered a bit earlier: successive Governments have never been courageous or honest enough to explain candidly to the British people the implications of these conventions. It has been easier to present the country with a series of faits accomplis and then wonder why there is a degree of public cynicism and toxicity about the process.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reject amendments that place excessive weight on the narrow interpretation of the rule of law. I respectfully suggest that Members of the Committee who have amendments in this group reflect on how the outcome of their decisions and discussions may serve across the country to undermine the credibility of and public confidence in a concept—the rule of law—which we can all agree lies at the heart of our society.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I largely made at Second Reading all the points I would have wished to make in this debate, and they were admirably made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to construe for us the meaning of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. The Minister made a sporting shot at it at Second Reading when he said:
“I think it is fair to say that there has been a misunderstanding of the effect of such a statement. We have designed a scheme that is novel and ambitious”.
One can say that again. He continued:
“as a result, we have made a Section 19(1)(b) statement under that Act. This simply makes it clear that we cannot say definitively that we will win a challenge in Strasbourg. However, we are confident that Strasbourg will respect the will of Parliament and our domestic court processes. We make no apologies for taking this approach. This is what the situation demands and what the British public expect”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1921.]
I find that a slightly sinister statement. It seems to carry the ring of, “And the court had better find for us, or else”—and we all know what the “or else” is that is talked about in some quarters. To be fair to the Minister, he did not try to argue that, in a dualist state like us, breaching international law is a legitimate action, but some he cited in his speech are so arguing.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that if one thinks that these conventions are a bit old and wants to change them, the way to go about that is to call for an international conference and put down proposals for amendments to the conventions. The refugee situation and the problems of asylum are not less now than they were when the conventions were created, so the need to defend and perhaps develop them—there is a case for trying to develop them—is more important now than it was even when they were first set up.
I strongly support Amendment 4. I also support Amendment 2.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 4 for all the reasons that almost every Member of the Committee has expressed in the debate, but I will not repeat any of those arguments. I am a little disappointed that we have not heard from the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, both of whom are sitting on the Government Benches. As a fellow lawyer, I would be interested to know their position on Amendment 4. I think that I saw the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, attempt to stand up, so I may get an answer to that question.
I am going to read to your Lordships a short quotation from the brief I have just received from Justice. I should tell your Lordships that I am on the council of Justice and have been a member for many years. It reads as follows:
“This is a perilous moment for human rights protections in continental Europe, as the war in Ukraine continues and Russia is expelled from the Council of Europe (the leading human rights organisation on the continent). The UK’s reputation is strengthened not only by being a party to the European Convention on Human Rights but an active leading member of the Council of Europe. Now is the moment for the UK to take the lead”.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer; I am an economist. When the most reverend Primate raised this question on 9 December last year, I spoke on this matter. It is not that there is any problem with Amendment 4; I accept it entirely. A sense of this issue is in Amendment 1: the Bill should not have been called an illegal immigrants Bill. It should have been called an economic migrants Bill, because the whole idea, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that we cannot distinguish between economic migrants and genuine refugees. In trying to make that distinction when somebody arrives on our shores, having paid some smugglers, we have to undertake a lot of expense, and it takes a lot of time before we can decide that so-and-so is not a refugee, because not everybody who arrives is a genuine refugee. It would help if we could separately define economic migrants and refugees.
Being an economist, I think unlimited migration is good. Let me put it this way: I do not want to exclude economic migrants, because I think they are very useful people. They have talents and are willing to risk smugglers, small boats and their lives to arrive here, so they genuinely want to come here, work hard and make a fortune—that is very good. We need people like that.
For the purposes of the law and popular sentiment, it would be helpful if we started with a distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees. I can see why it may be a very difficult thing to do, but if you could make the distinction then we could live with Amendment 4 very happily, and in Amendment 1 we could define precisely how our courts can quickly define economic migrants. Then we should charge them money to come here—I do not see any problem with that. We have visas, and green or red cards—whatever it is—and if you are willing to pay the smuggler, why not pay us? Rather than lose money, we should have our own boat services across the channel and say, “Please come, get into our boats and pay us the money you were going to pay the smugglers”. We are losing money and not solving the problem. I know this is shocking, but these things happen.
Let us decide who is an economic migrant and who is a refugee. If we can make that distinction logically and clearly, a lot of our problems will be solved.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief in speaking to the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
As the son of an immigrant, it always makes me uneasy when that word is spoken in vain. I am the son of an immigrant who was a member of the Sikh community which came to the UK in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and helped to build this country by working their guts out in the foundries of the West Midlands. Most of the foundry workers were Sikhs.
The Sikh population in the UK is now about 550,000 people. It is one of the most successful communities in the UK, with the lowest number of benefit claimants, the lowest unemployment rate and high rates of home ownership. Only 4% of the Sikh community lives in social rented housing, compared with 18% of other groups. It has the highest proportion of people in high-skill occupations at 39%, compared with 30% among other groups. Only 2% of the Sikh elderly are in care homes compared with a much higher number in other communities. A recent BBC study found that Sikhs are the most generous group when it comes to giving to charities. Over 60,000 meals—langar—are served every week on the streets of the UK by Sikhs. And yet—this is my first point—in a recent faith report for the Government by Colin Bloom, the impression given was that Sikhs are terrorists and extremists. I do not accept that characterisation of the Sikh community.
As for the Bill, I wish the Prime Minister had shredded it along with the other European papers. Whichever way you look at it, the Bill stinks to high heaven. It does not speak to our country’s traditional moral values, our international obligations on human rights, the UN convention on refugees, the European convention against human trafficking, other international treaties and so on and so forth. All these have been mentioned by other noble Lords. There is not a decent principle in the Bill that does not break human rights. I fully agree with these amendments.
We shredded our position and power in the world by pulling out of the European Union. Now, we are shredding our moral obligation in the world with this Bill—and what for? For a few votes in so-called “red wall” areas. Our Prime Minister and Home Secretary should think again before pursuing the Bill. As the son and daughter of immigrants, they should know how much immigrants have given to this country. I support these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, brought his copy of Hansard from Second Reading with him. My recollection of the Minister’s explanation regarding Section 19(1)(b) was that the matter had not been tested by the courts. That sticks in my mind because I thought it was curious, since the Government are rather critical of people running off to the courts for interpretations of the law.
I will say quickly, because I want to put it on the record, that I subscribe to the view that no asylum seeker can be illegal and to the comments about international law which have been made. I am afraid that I am going to retreat from the big picture and Second Reading to Amendment 1—possibly unconventionally. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling it, because it made me start thinking about the definitions of a lot of other terms used in Clause 1. The term he has singled out—I agree with him that it needs clarity—raises a lot of issues. There is a sort of endless loop of argument about compliance by the individual and compliance by the Government in their assessment of what they are doing.
In my mind, that is not the only phrase in Clause 1(1) that needs to be clearer. The same sentence uses the wording,
“and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
That raises a lot of issues, does it not? Unsafe, of course, is a matter of judgment. As for illegal routes, in legislative terms, how does a route become illegal? What does “and in particular” signify in this context? Does the reference to unsafe and illegal routes exclude other routes? I really do not know. It is good prose, but not in this context.
Another phrase which bothers me at a technical and, I have to say, a political and a practical level is
“in breach of immigration control”.
Superficially, one understands what that means, but I do not know and was unable to find whether this is a technical phrase and so legally clear within domestic law. Immigration control is breached by a contravention of legislation, I would think, at a given time. That is clear enough. However, in the area we are discussing, the Immigration Rules—which we know are constantly changing and which come from Ministers and do not touch the sides for parliamentary scrutiny—are part of immigration control. So, I would be interested to know what that means in this context. It seems to me that one could portray this as delegation to Ministers by another mechanism. It is not clear—this is the political point, I suppose—so it is not a deterrent. I think it is inappropriate and gives more power to the Executive, which the Constitution Committee reports are given
“an unusual degree of power”
by the Bill.
I have added my name to Amendment 84. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not in his place; I did not expect to find that the debate on this would come today, and possibly neither did he. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for highlighting compliance with the anti-trafficking conventions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that we need to come together with a single list that we can gather around.
I do not want to pre-empt debates on the substantive issues regarding trafficking and slavery—I say that without intending to suggest that the conventions and directives are not significant; they are—but will simply say that I expect the term “world-leading” to be used quite a lot with reference to the Modern Slavery Act when we get to that part of the Bill. The international nature of trafficking means that the UK has to consider it internationally and comply with conventions and directives—which brings us directly back to the point that many other noble Lords have made.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 4, 84 and 148. I shall not speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. As for those later amendments, I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say about their meaning and effect on the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 2. Let me begin by way of introduction by explaining what I understand to be the effect of Clause 1(5) of the Bill, which will disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Importantly, it does not mean that the convention ceases to apply to matters covered by the Bill or to acts by Ministers and officials; they will still be covered by it. Section 3 provides that
“primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
If the noble Lord looked at the national statistics on immigration for 2022, he would see that the figure is about 47,500 immigrants coming in by boat, but of those, there was a large portion of Albanians, and none of them were permitted to stay; they were shipped back to Albania.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
That may be so, but the numbers are on a rising plane, and it is not simply Albanians now, they are coming from elsewhere. All I say is this. This is a carefully interlinked package of provisions. It may not be attractive or how we have done things in the past, but we face very different circumstances, and I suggest we should not seek to unpick its structure.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I just ask the noble Lord about his point on Section 3 of the HRA, which he regards as disadvantageous. He talked about courts having to make a strained interpretation. I wonder whether he would give me some idea of how many cases there have been where the courts have had to strain to make this interpretation. Presumably, if they felt they had to do that, they would have had to resort to Section 4, declaring incompatibility. The review by Sir Peter Gross did not have a major problem with Section 3—I think there was a little tweak that has escaped my memory for the moment. It was broadly satisfied with the operation of Section 3, so I wonder why it is so difficult. With Section 4 and declarations of incompatibility, there is the disadvantage of having to make remedial orders—and there is not really capacity in the Commons to do that—and/or end up in the Strasbourg court. It seems to me much better to give some leeway to the courts to interpret legislation compatibly with the convention.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
, I looked at Sir Peter Gross’s report yesterday and the night before to remind myself of what it said. Two points are important. One is that it was not unanimous on that point, unlike on everything else. We are not told where the disagreement was, but at least one member did not agree that nothing should be done. Secondly, it lamented the fact that there had been no statistics kept of the cases in which the court has gone down the route of Section 3, so we do not actually know when there has been what might be called a strained interpretation or when it has been a perfectly natural interpretation. You can read it if you look at individual judgments. The one in which Lord Steyn spoke is the case of Ghaidan—I cannot remember the other name in the case—
Lord Etherton (CB)
I have a very short point to make. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, say that he was a great fan of the rule of law, but he, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seems to think that it is something that can be moulded in accordance with political desire in Parliament. We should be quite clear about this, and the point is not a difficult one.
The rule of law is made up of various ingredients. One of those ingredients is compliance with international obligations. If you do not like the obligations and wish to comply with the rule of law, you either secede from the convention or international obligation or you change it. So long as it is there, you have to comply with it if you want to say that you are a country that observes the rule of law. We are a leading world democracy. If we do not abide by the rule of law, we place ourselves in the company of numerous rogue nations. This country deserves better than that.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
I feel a little intimidated to follow such an intervention. I am not a lawyer either, but I am a member, as I have said repeatedly in the past, of the delegation from this Parliament to the Council of Europe; and I can attest, from conversations I have had in its migration committee, plenary sessions and other meetings in Strasbourg and other parts of Europe, that there are a number of countries in Europe at the moment that are looking to us to uphold standards that will give them the courage to maintain their current position with regard to these conventions. It is a very perilous moment. Our role in Europe is key to keeping quite a lot of others on board, and I want to emphasise that.
I feel it almost impossible for me to want to give even a shred of support to a Bill that, as has been quoted, has as its preface a statement by the Minister that he cannot give any guarantee, et cetera. I find myself at a loss to be looking at a piece of legislation—a law that will go on to our statute books—that begins this process with this degree of ambiguity written into it. Can lawyers not give the rest of us a starting point more certain than that?
Finally, let me say at this point that, long before I got involved in European matters, I had a lot to do with migration from Haiti to the United States, which is not a signatory to the convention. The methods open to countries that are not signatories to the convention are not pleasant at all, and I simply would not want the United Kingdom to have the opportunities to behave in that way.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 2, 4 and 148 in this group because they would subvert and obstruct Clause 1, which sets out the purposes of the Bill and how they are to be advanced. I also oppose Amendment 3, because it would do so in a more subtle way, in requiring the Secretary of State to give guidance to Parliament on
“how the provisions … are to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention Rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act”,
and it includes a new obstacle that this
“does not have effect until approved by each House of Parliament”.
In this Bill, the Government are proposing to tackle unlawful migration—people coming into this country via unsafe and unlawful routes. The Government have a duty to enforce the laws of this country. They also have a duty to ensure the security of this country, including the security of its borders. International rules require asylum seekers to seek refuge in the first safe country in which they are.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
It is a long-established tradition.
The Government have proposed a scheme to remove those who did not, in this case, seek refuge in France and those who do not comply with this country’s immigration controls, as has been said. The Bill’s purpose is to deter and prevent unlawful migration. To advance that purpose, it is disapplying Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That is supposed to have the effect of making the laws clear. To this end, the disapplication matters.
I therefore oppose these amendments because they seek to subvert the aims or obstruct the purposes and methods proposed by this measure. They would remove the clarity on how the Bill is to be interpreted. They would obstruct the duty on our Government to ensure the security of our country and uphold the law. They would also mean that the democratic will of the people of this country, which is that our borders are controlled, is frustrated in the case of this sort of migration. I urge the Minister to reject these amendments.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I apologise for not taking part in the Second Reading debate on this Bill, but I have made amends by sitting through the entire debate this afternoon. I am sure that, when I reflect on the last few hours, I will realise how much I learned. There are two points I would like to make.
First, I am surprised that, despite the intervention of the right reverend Prelate—and despite, I am sure, his prayers as well—some Members of the House continue to conflate the issue of what was once disgracefully called by a Minister the invasion across the English Channel with the general issue of immigration. We can deal with the issue of immigration—and there is nothing wrong with that at all—best of all by having a serious labour market policy. That is the only way we will deal with immigration that does not set one party against another in a sort of auction of prejudice. I hope we will stop making it more difficult to discuss this Bill by talking about it as though it were a key to deal with the issue of immigration.
Secondly, I was surprised to find a spokesman for the People’s Republic of China. Why did the Chinese say they were perfectly at liberty to break the joint declaration? They said it was a historic agreement; it was out of time; it was like a packet of peanuts that had passed its sell-by date. So, I am never going to believe that, simply because we signed something 10, 20, 40 or 50 years ago, it does not have any relevance today. But I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether or not he thinks this Bill is in line with international obligations, and I am looking forward, I suppose, to the contribution from the Chinese ambassador in the next debate.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Patten, I have sat through all of this debate. I rise because my name—or, at least, a name close to mine—was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at one point. The reason I rise with a little diffidence is that I have to catch a flight later this evening. I anticipate that I will be able to stay to the end of this debate and still make the plane, but if that turns out not to be right, I hope noble Lords will forgive me and not think that I mean any discourtesy to this Committee or those sitting in it today. I hope everybody will appreciate that is the last thing I would want.
Unlike other speakers, I cannot disavow being a lawyer. For better or worse, I am a lawyer. Therefore, let me make two short points at the outset. First, international law obligations are important. We ought to abide by them, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations.
Secondly, as I made clear from the Front Bench on a number of occasions, I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court—I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either—but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.
I will not refer to all these amendments. I start with Amendments 3 and 148, which go together. Essentially, they refer to the statement that the Secretary of State must set out as to whether the Bill is compatible with the convention rights. Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b) were put into the Human Rights Act as a political point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made this absolutely clear when the Bill was going through this House. It was to keep people’s minds focused on whether the Government could say at that time that the Bill was compliant. It was never intended to be a legal bar. There is precedent in this House. The Communications Bill is a precedent for the Government being unable to state that the Bill was compatible with convention rights. When they were challenged, the challenges failed.
One cannot draw a line between being unable to make a Section 19(1)(a) statement and the Bill being in breach of convention rights. Section 19(1)(b) is very carefully drafted, and I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who asked what it means. That statement is in the form that it is in the Bill because those are the words in Section 19(1)(b). That is what Parliament told the Minister to say. The structure is that if the Minister cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, he or she makes a Section 19(1)(b) statement. Rather oddly, all that Section 19(1)(b) says is, “I can’t make Section 19(1)(a)”. Is that sensible? With respect, I do not think it is. If it were up to me, I would take out Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b), which add more distraction than assistance. They were put in for political rather than legal reasons, and that is why the Section 19(1)(b) statement is in the form that it is in.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I recall saying once in the Appellate Committee that the courts were not bound by the statement—it has no legal effect.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right; it has no legal effect. Can I put this another way? The Minister can make a Section 19(1)(b) statement and the court can find that the Act is compatible. The Minister can make Section 19(1)(a) statement and the court can find that it is not.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the noble Lord not agree that the Section 19(1)(b) statement on this Bill is very different from the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the Communications Bill? I am sure that he has looked at it. Secretary of State Tessa Jowell made the following statement:
“I am unable (but only because of Clause 309) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Communications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
By making that statement, Tessa Jowell made it clear that in a massive Bill there was only one clause that she could not make such a statement about. In effect, she stated that everything apart from Clause 309 was compliant with the Human Rights Act. That is how it was understood; we can all read the debates. Is it not incumbent upon the Government, when they make a statement as vague as that on this Bill, to explain what is and what is not compatible with the Human Rights Act?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is making a political point. It may be good politics or bad politics, but whether the Government want to do that or not, my focus is on Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which is very clear:
“A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading … (a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights … or (b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.
We could have a nice debate about whether the statement in the Communications Act 2003 was consistent with Section 19, but that is not my point. My point today is simply that we cannot legitimately criticise the Minister for making precisely the statement that Parliament told him to make in Section (19)(1)(b) if he cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
With respect to the noble Lord, nobody is criticising the Minister for making the statement. The noble Lord is the distraction, not Section 19. We are criticising the Bill that cannot be stated as compatible. It is the legislation that we have a problem with, not the honesty of the Minister in saying, “I can’t say that I believe this to be compatible”. It might be politics, but politics is the process of legislative scrutiny. The objective of Section 19 was to force Ministers to put their money where their mouth is in the debate and to say whether they believe that this draft legislation complies. If they say, “I can’t be sure”, it is quite right for us to do what we are doing. With respect, this is smoke and mirrors and not to the substance of this Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It is certainly not smoke and mirrors. The force of the noble Baroness’s point is, “If you can’t make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, there is something irremediably bad with the Bill”. My point is that if you are legislating in a novel area, there may well be circumstances in which you cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement. A Section 19(1)(a) statement is a 51:49 statement that, in your view, it is compatible. If you therefore think that it is finely balanced as to whether it is, you cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement. It would be wrong in those circumstances for a Government to think, “I shouldn’t bring this Bill before Parliament merely because I take the view that it is 50:50”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the former Minister and sure that he listened carefully to how Section 19 was introduced into the deliberations of the Committee earlier, not least by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Members of the Committee have been pointing to the contradictions in the Government’s position around the compatibility of this Bill—Section 19(1)(b) on the tin and then something else in the ECHR memorandum. It is the clarity of the Government’s belief that Members of the Committee have for some hours this afternoon been looking for.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
To avoid the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, having to be up and down too many times, I will jump in here. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that the Secretary of State’s inability to make a Section 19(1)(a) declaration was in relation to only one clause. The content of that clause was the proposed ban on political advertising across all broadcast media. One can see why that might inhibit a Section 19(1)(a) declaration, but it is not on the same scale as what many of us in this Chamber this afternoon maintain are the various and extremely serious breaches of the European convention commitment. It is apples and pears, or chalk and cheese—I am mixing my metaphors horribly. It is not a good precedent for saying why there cannot be a declaration of compatibility for this Bill. It is not on the same scale.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful for that shortish intervention. Essentially it raises the same point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put to me and, without any disrespect, I give the same answer. I am focused, as a matter of principle, on what Section 19 does.
Amendment 2, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, disregards Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which is a very odd section. Uniquely in our law, it requires that other Acts of Parliament be interpreted:
“So far as it is possible to do so”
in accordance with the convention rights. We do not do that in any other area of our law.
The case law under Section 3 is extremely complex. As has been referred to before, Sir Peter Gross set this out in his review of the Human Rights Act. I would be entirely content if I could be sure that the current law on what Section 3 does remains the law. What we have seen, however, when we look at Ullah, Al-Skeini or other cases, is that what Section 3 means and how it is interpreted by the courts has moved. In those circumstances, the Government are right to exclude Section 3 of the Human Rights Act from the Bill by way of its Clause 1(5).
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, because I was following with interest his argument, which seems to be that there are two sorts of obligation—those we incorporate in domestic law and international obligations—and the international obligations are less binding, important and necessary. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me what the status of the UN charter or the Brussels treaty on NATO is. Does he mean that we, as a Parliament, could decide not to apply Article 5 of the NATO treaty? That would be a pretty serious statement to make.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am reluctant to give the noble Lord a private lecture on this, but I will set out a very short answer. I will be blunt but, I hope, legally accurate. The short answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes; we could do it. International treaties are not part of our domestic law. As far as our domestic courts are concerned—please let me finish and I will give way—if we were to legislate completely contrary to an international treaty, our domestic courts would have to abide by the Act of Parliament, because that is domestic law. Of course, that would put the UK in breach of the international treaty. It is not something I would recommend, but the noble Lord asked me a direct question about how the two interrelate, and that is a necessary consequence of being a dualist state. International treaties are not part of domestic law, unless and until they are incorporated.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
This could develop into a really interesting argument, I am afraid—between lawyers. The noble Lord just referred to the dualist theory, which of course is very important, but, in reality, international treaties are not usually entered into legislation because they are made under the royal prerogative. But that does not make them any less binding.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I started my remarks by saying that international treaties are extremely important and that we should always legislate consistently with our international obligations, except in the most unforeseen and unusual circumstances. But that is not the question I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We are a dualist state. That is why we should object to these amendments, which seek to incorporate treaties by the back door.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As a matter of fact, the European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated by the Human Rights Act 1998, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated by the Children Act and so on. These particular treaties have been given special status in our domestic law. I also take some exception to the idea that Amendment 4, which everybody can see, is somehow surreptitious or “back door”. We are having this debate because, by definition, some of us want this protection very much via the front door.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
With great respect, the noble Baroness is wrong. The Human Rights Act did not incorporate the convention. Can I just finish what I was saying? It took certain articles of the convention and reproduced them in a schedule to the Act of Parliament. That is not incorporating the convention; it is reproducing certain articles of it in the Human Rights Act. The point is not relevant to today but, if I am going to be interrupted on a point of law, at least let it be right. One has only to look at Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act to see what that Act did.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I hesitate to butt into this very exciting conversation between some great legal minds. I will of course pore over it in Hansard tomorrow. The point about courts saying “Did the Government mean this or that?” is that we are passing very bad laws that are not explicit—that is the fault of the Government—and this will be one of them.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that we should pass clear legislation. I think she used the word “exciting” to describe lawyers.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
That is the first time I have heard the word used. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, used the word “interesting”, which is at least better than “expensive”, which is the usual word used. On that, perhaps I should sit down.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, I have found the last few minutes absolutely absorbing. I have learned a great deal without having to pay any tuition fees. I shall peruse Hansard with a great deal of interest and will advise any law students to do the same.
Although I am not a lawyer, I will make two brief comments. For some years, I have served on the British delegation to the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It is slightly different from the Council of Europe, but it involves a lot of discussion nevertheless. I serve on its migration committee and we have had a lot of discussion about how we do things in this country and about how other countries behave.
What I have noticed in recent years is that the respect which we as a country have earned has been somewhat diminished, and I am asked, “Why are you doing this?” and “Isn’t this a departure?”. I remember some years ago, when we still had a lot of respect, I was asked what I thought in terms of the British experience of the rule of law and so on and how I would approach a particular issue; I ventured to indicate how I thought we would do it. But those questions are not being asked any more. We are no longer treated as a model that has earned international respect because of abiding by the rule of law and doing things properly and openly.
I would have thought this Bill has debased our reputation, certainly in countries that follow these issues, and I think that is a matter of enormous regret. I used to take pride in the fact that, in international gatherings, I came and represented a Parliament of a country that was treated well by other countries. They regarded us as an example to follow, and I fear that that is much less the case than it used to be.
I will briefly make one other point about public opinion. Of course, I am aware that what we do and what public opinion thinks is crucial. We cannot just act as if public opinion did not exist. I remember when I introduced an amendment in 2016 about refugees—Theresa May was then Home Secretary—public opinion influenced the Government’s attitude. Initially, she asked me to withdraw my amendment, and I said I would not and then public opinion woke up to what was happening: it was the television pictures of the Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach.
I have told this story before. The amendment was going through and I heard somebody shout at me in the street. Now, we know that normally, when people shout at us in the street, it is abuse because we are politicians. In this case, a woman shouted out: “Keep going with your amendment”. It made me realise that public opinion is not monolithic and opposed to refugees; it moves with the times. The sad thing is—I am not allowed to call anybody a liar, am I?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I shall be very careful—I do not want to be thrown out of here. During the referendum campaign, Boris Johnson said that if we did not leave the EU, 70 million or 80 million Turks were poised to enter Britain. That inflamed public opinion and moved it away from sympathy for immigrants, and indeed for refugees, as the public do not always distinguish between the two. It made me realise that public opinion can move about, but it is important. I have said all along when I have talked about refugees that it is important that we explain what is going on in such a way that public opinion is on our side.
On Amendment 4, I believe that the British public on the whole, if it was explained sensibly and objectively, would say, “We understand why we adhere to these international treaties, why they matter and why they are important”. I fear that, when eminent members of the Cabinet talk about “invaders”, they seek to poison public opinion and make it less sympathetic to how we treat asylum seekers and refugees. I think that is very sad indeed. The language we use too often does influence public opinion and I hoped at least some of this debate would have gone the other way. I think those of us who believe in the 1951 Geneva convention and the other international agreements have a responsibility to try and explain the issues in such a way that British people understand what is at stake. I believe there is a great deal at stake here.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support the clarifying amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lady Ludford has explained at length the reasons for her Amendment 2. I, too, will read the official record in an attempt to understand the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. Having done that, I may just leave that to the lawyers to argue among themselves.
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said, if this Bill is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, then the Government should say why or which bits of it are compliant. If there is a precedent for the Government to say that a Bill is not in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—the precedent set in the 2002 Act—then surely the precedent set by the 2002 Act is that the Government also say which bits of the Act are not compliant with the European convention.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the fact that he is conflating two different purposes. One is rights of admission—that is for the 1.3 million—the 700,000 have the right to remain. They are quite different, and the 1.3 million do not impose the burden on us in so far as 1.3 million people, but 700,000 people here permanently need to have, as I have said, houses, schools, jobs and all the other stuff which we expect and which they must have if they are fully paid-up citizens of this country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I will apologise to the noble Lord if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the 700,000 is net migration. That is the number of people whom the Government have given permission to come and live here—1,370,000—minus the number of people who have left the UK, so not exactly what the noble Lord has said at all. It is an issue. As the most reverend Primate said, this Bill deals with 45,000 compared with the 1,370,000 the Government have given permission to come here.
Similarly, we support Amendment 148 in that none of the Bill’s provisions should come into force until the Secretary of State makes a statement that this Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
To the Minister, I would say that with noble friends like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the Government clearly have serious questions to answer. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, whatever the solution to the overall immigration issue is, it cannot involve this country riding roughshod over its international obligations. As a commander said to me when I presented my solution to a very difficult problem in the police, I do not know what the solution is but it is not this.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to wind up for His Majesty’s Opposition. I start by declaring my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and my work with the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab. I thank the Minister for arranging for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I to visit Western Jet Foil in Dover yesterday and the Manston reception centre to see the work that they do there. I know the Minister will join us in saying to noble Lords that, whatever our debates about policy, the work, commitment, professionalism and dedication of those people who are saving lives at sea and helping people when they come ashore are second to none, and they deserve our praise and tribute.
Having said that, nobody is saying, as we debate the Bill, that there is not an issue about the boats and those coming across the channel in that way. Nobody is disputing that. Nobody is saying that there is no need to control our borders. Nobody is saying there is no need for any of the sorts of policies that we have been debating. What is before us is the way that it is done. What is the policy objective? What is the way of doing it? What is the way of controlling it? From the contributions that have been made, the debate that we have had here is saying that the Government have got it wrong and that not only will it not work—and I will come to the other points in a minute—but that it is not consistent with the principles we hold. That is a perfectly acceptable view to have. It does not mean that you are in favour of as many boats as possible coming across without any reflection on what we might do about it or that we do not care about that; it is saying that it is not the right way of going about it.
Many noble Lords have been Members of the other place, as I have. Nobody is seeking in the slightest sense, as a couple of noble Lords have suggested, to block the will of the House of Commons as it has been expressed. That was defeated by a heavy majority in the vote last week, or whenever it was. That majority included me as I did not think it was right thing to do, but I will not be intimidated by the other place into not saying that this House has the perfect right to stand up, to change the Bill if we think it is wrong, to take out of it things we think are wrong and to say to the other place that it should think again because what it is seeking to do is not right. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and is the constitutional position of this House.
My noble friend Lord Dubs is right: sometimes people will pray in aid public opinion one way or another and it changes. I could quote the local election results and some results where one would think that if the “stop the boats” message was working, there would have been different results from those that happened, but I will not make a political point. The point that I am trying to make is that public opinion changes, it moves and sometimes, as my noble friend Lord Dubs reminded us, it is incumbent upon people to say, without being arrogant or out of touch, that in this respect we think this is the right way to go forward, this is the right thing to do.
The other point I want to make is that we are not a direct democracy; we are a representative democracy. That is an important point to make.
Although I signed Amendment 2, which is important, Amendment 4 goes to the heart of this group. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, deserve a lot of praise for tabling it because it goes to the heart of the Bill. I think that in many ways—I disagree with noble Lords who say that this is not the case—it is unbelievable that we are having to discuss an amendment to a Bill which says that this Bill, which a Government of this country are bringing forward, has to be consistent with the international conventions that we have signed. I would have thought that was a given.
I know there has been a great legal debate about what law means and whether we are a dualist country. I had never heard the word “dualist” until about a week ago. My simple understanding was, and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Patten, and others made this point, that whether we are a dualist country or not, when a country signs an international convention, when it agrees with other countries that these are the rules that it is going to abide by, I think they probably think that means that it is going to abide by it whether you are a dualist country, a monist country or whatever country it is, because they believe that the Government of the country that they have negotiated an agreement with have made a binding commitment in terms of how they will proceed. That is the point. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, knows what happened in Hong Kong with the agreement. That is the whole point. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has done more of those negotiations. What are we doing with Russia? We are saying to Russia in Ukraine that we are not going to stand by and watch it drive a coach and horses through international agreements and international conventions. We are not going to stand by and watch that happen. I am proud our country is doing that.
That is why Amendment 4 is so important, but it is, frankly, unbelievable, as I said at the beginning, that it has had to be tabled. Is it really the case that our Government are telling the United Nations commissioner, the Council of Europe commissioner and all the other people who have said that this Bill breaks those conventions and things that we have signed, “You are wrong and we are right”? Is that really what we have come to? Is that really the situation that we are in? Are we not concerned about our reputation? The Government will say that it is not the case. I am sure the Minister will get up and say that we are abiding by these conventions and that the Government do not understand why the commissioner has written and that he or she is wrong in writing to us and saying that we do not abide by this convention or that convention. I am sure that the Minister will say that, but why are they writing to us? They cannot both be right. Either they are right or the Government are right, and yet they are saying to the Government that many of the conventions they have signed are being broken by the Illegal Migration Bill. What is our Government saying? Has it really come down to our Government just dismissing it, just a shrug of the shoulders, it does not matter, who cares, we are not bothered? That is no way for a Government to run their affairs. The consequences of doing that are enormous.
I finish by returning to the point about Amendment 4. I think it does us a favour; there might be one or two other conventions, but the amendment lays it out. These are fundamental ways in which countries have come together to say that, when dealing with some of the most difficult situations that we face, including the mass movement of people across borders, no country can do it alone. There must be co-operation, agreement and understanding—and those agreements and that understanding are based on countries believing that what they are told by another country will be adhered to and promises will be kept.
If that is not the case, all this will fall apart and we will have international anarchy. Our country cannot solve the problem of refugees and migration alone; it needs to work with others. That was the basis of the conventions that we signed and of the agreements that we made; our international reputation stands on it and we should keep it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very interesting, long and good debate, which has had perhaps more than a hint of a Second Reading debate—but, of course, that is unsurprising, given that Clause 1 sets out the purpose of the Bill. We will of course be able to revisit this debate in the second group when we have the “clause stand part” Question.
We have heard thoughtful speeches from many noble Lords, but I particularly valued the insights from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam, Lord Sandhurst and Lady Lawlor, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson.
For now, let me respond to the amendments directly. First, Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seek to add into the Bill definitions of “illegal migration” and “unlawful migration”. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that this would be helpful in the interests of legal certainty. As a lawyer myself, I am all in favour of legal certainty but, in this instance, I am not persuaded that adding these definitions helps in this regard.
It is important to incorporate Bill-wide definitions in a Bill where terms are used across the Bill. We have done that in this Bill and, as noble Lords will have noticed, Clause 64 includes an index of defined expressions. But I put it to the noble and learned Lord that nothing hangs off the terms “unlawful migration” or “illegal migration” and, consequently, there is no need to define them. The term “unlawful migration” is used only once in the Bill, in Clause 1(1), while the term “illegal migration” is used only in the Short Title, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, observed. Moreover, it is clear from Clause 2 that the duty to make arrangements for removal applies to persons who meet the four conditions in that clause. It does not apply to other persons who may be in the country unlawfully—for example, because they have overstayed their limited leave to enter or remain. In short, the Bill is clear without these two terms being defined.
As regards the early intervention in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a point repeated by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee, as well as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I remind your Lordships that the Immigration Act 1971 was recently amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 with regard to the criminal offences relating to illegal entry and arrival. This includes people who enter the UK without leave or arrive in the UK without permission: for example, without a visa where that is required under the Immigration Rules. This means that such persons are illegal migrants whether or not they go on to claim asylum. This, if I may say, answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of what makes a route illegal. The answer is: legislation, passed in the normal way, and scrutinised and passed by this House.
The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that anyone making claims under the refugee convention can never be illegal, represents, with respect, a muddled reading of the convention. The convention is clear that states can still operate controls on illegal migration and, under Article 31, it is expressly permitted to disadvantage those who have arrived illegally from safe countries—which is true of all who come from France. This embodies the first safe country principle in the sense that Article 31 protections apply only to those who have come directly from unsafe countries—a point made by my noble friend Lady Lawlor.
The first safe country principle is also widely recognised internationally, including in the Common European Asylum System, a framework of rules and procedures operated by EU countries together, based on the refugee convention. I would add that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, may have overlooked the fact that, under Clause 2(4) of this Bill, the “duty to remove” does not apply to those who have come directly from unsafe countries, in line with the refugee convention.
The refugee convention seems to be raised to support statements that are not all borne out by its terms. We must interpret the convention as it is written, not as others would wish it to be written.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I merely want to ask whether you are recommending that all of the 46,000 who arrived last year should be sent back to France. If so, has the Prime Minister had any discussions with President Macron about that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, the Prime Minister and President Macron have had regular discussions and there have been regular treaties and agreements in relation to the enhancement of police powers in France, but it is not presently the position of the French Government that they are willing to accept the return of those who have entered the UK illegally. That is what drives the Government to look for other avenues to dissuade people from embarking on the dangerous journey across the channel.
Turning to Amendment 2, tabled—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but I wonder if he could direct my attention to where in Article 31 of the refugee convention it refers to “illegal migrants”. I can find a reference only to “illegal entry or presence” or “entry or presence without authorisation”. It is the entry or the presence that is illegal or unauthorised; it is not the person. That is the problem that many of us have with the term “illegal migrant”. I cannot find it in Article 31 of the refugee convention; perhaps I have not looked hard enough.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I was indeed about to mention her in my next sentence. Let me address that point and repeat what I said earlier. The phrase “illegal migration” in the Short Title of the Bill refers to the fact that the act of entering otherwise than in accordance with immigration controls was criminalised by an Act passed by this House and the other place in 2022. That is why it is correct to describe such people as “illegal migrants”—because they did not enter in accordance with immigration controls. That is the long and the short of it. The interpretation of Article 31 is irrelevant as regards that point of certainty.
I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. This amendment seeks to strike out subsection (5), which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than the strained interpretations imposed by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson, King’s Counsel, pointed out, Section 3 is an unusual provision in UK law and there is, in principle, no reason why it cannot be excluded in cases like this.
It is our view that Parliament and the Government are better suited to address the sensitive policy issues involved in this legislation. It is therefore only right that Section 3, which requires the court to interpret the provisions to achieve compatibility with convention rights, must be disapplied so that courts interpret the law in accordance with the purpose of the Bill. Through this, we are ensuring that the balance between our domestic institutions is right and that Parliament’s intent is clear to the courts.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained, Amendment 3 flows from the recent report of the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful to that committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. We are studying its report carefully and will respond in full ahead of Report. As for the genesis of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord explained that the Constitution Committee considered that more explanation was needed around the Section 19(1)(b) statement that I made on the introduction of the Bill in this House.
Notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted from my Second Reading speech on this issue, I reiterate the point I made at that stage: a Section 19(1)(b) statement means not that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the convention rights, only that we cannot be certain that they are compatible. The assertion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his speech a moment ago, that the statement amounts to a concession that measures in the Bill are incompatible, is not the case. The purpose of Section 19, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out, is that it is a statement that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with convention rights and we cannot be certain that they are compatible. It is of course a measure in a piece of legislation passed by the last Labour Government and therefore something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would no doubt place great weight on. Those are the terms that we find in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister not think that it might at least be a courtesy to the Committee to set out which of the provisions, in his view and that of the Home Secretary, are or are not compatible with the convention? That would help us to determine the quality of the legislation that is proposed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will come to address the issues of the broad applicability of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. There is no requirement in the Act for a statement to identify any particular section. Indeed, I do not want to wade into the waters that were nearly ventured into during the interventions on my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s speech about whether the Section 19(1)(b) statement in relation to the Communications Bill, as it then was, was in accordance with the statute.
In any event, I return to the principle of Section 19(1)(b) statements. It is right to say that they have been made by Governments of all stripes, not least in the Communications Bill, as we heard earlier in the debate, but also by the coalition Government and by Nick Clegg in the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson rightly indicated, issuing a Section 19(1)(b) statement is a legitimate choice given to Ministers under the Human Rights Act. Why else would the Act provide for such a course?
As I have said, previous Governments have issued such statements, and clearly that has not caused our international reputation to collapse. More broadly, I encourage the Committee to approach questions of international reputation with a proper perspective. The world can be in no doubt that we are defenders of rights and liberty, the most obvious example being our leading support for Ukraine.
Requiring guidance to be approved by Parliament on how the Bill’s provisions are to be interpreted within the meaning of the Human Rights Act is unnecessary. On 7 March the Government published a memorandum addressing issues arising under the ECHR, and a supplementary memorandum was published in April in relation to the government amendments tabled for Report in the Commons. These memoranda set out a provision-by-provision ECHR analysis, so I submit that the Government’s position is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will find the answers to his questions about what sits behind the Section 19(1)(b) statement in those memoranda.
It will undoubtedly be necessary to provide Home Office staff, immigration officers and others with appropriate guidance to support the implementation of the Bill. It would not be appropriate for such routine operational guidance on the implementation of a particular Act to be subject to parliamentary approval.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
When my noble friend was replying to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, he said that the ECHR memorandum set out precisely which articles of the convention had that effect and which clauses in the Bill were compatible or not, and, as he says, different rights are listed. But what is the status of that definitive document? He says it is the answer to the noble Lord’s question, but what is its status? Presumably it does not have legal effect in itself.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is correct: the ECHR memorandum is one of the documents prepared to support the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Obviously, if a matter of interpretation were required, it is the sort of material that those looking for an interpretation might be minded to refer to. Indeed, it is open to those in Parliament to refer to such documents. It is, of course, right to say that the ECHR memorandum is a standard part of the package in relation to public Bills—so, in that sense, it has regular status.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Before the Minister leaves this part of his address, will he tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government that the implementation of the Act should be compliant with all the conventions that are set out in Amendment 4? Do the Government intend to comply with those conventions? This House is entitled to know.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already outlined, it is clear that there is nothing in the Bill that would require the UK to breach its international obligations. The UK takes compliance with those obligations very seriously. As for the other international instruments referred to in these amendments, they have not, by and large, been incorporated into UK domestic law, and we should not seek to do so in this Bill through the back door.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister seems to be placing a great deal of weight on there being nothing in this Bill that requires the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations. He would surely agree, however, that there is a great deal in this Bill that enables the Government to take action that would be contrary to our international obligations—and that without any recourse to Parliament.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. There is no requirement that powers should conceivably be expressed on the face of every Bill in such a way that they are trammelled by international obligations. That would be contrary to the dualist system, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson made abundantly clear. I am reluctant to reopen that particular exchange at this juncture, given the time that we have remaining prior to the dinner break.
States take different approaches to their international law obligations. Some states treat international law as part of their domestic law, but the UK, like other countries with similar constitutional arrangements, including many Commonwealth countries, has the dualist approach that we have discussed before. In those states, international law is treated as separate from domestic law and international law is incorporated into domestic law only by decisions of Parliaments through legislation. That is a point we have already discussed. The effect of these amendments would be to make the provisions of all the listed international agreements effectively justiciable in the UK courts. It is legitimate for noble Lords to make the case for incorporation into domestic law of one or more of these international instruments, but that is not the Government’s position, and we should not be using this Bill to secure that outcome.
I hope that, in light of my explanation, the noble and learned Lord will be content to withdraw his Amendment 1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me. He said that the Government would apply—I gather—all the conventions that are in Amendment 4. May I suggest that it would be impossible for the Government to apply the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? It is perfectly obvious that the best interests of a child throughout the Bill will not be recognised.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, as I have already said, it is the Government’s view that nothing in the Bill requires the UK to breach its international obligations, whether in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or any of the other listed international instruments. Of course, the United Kingdom takes compliance with its international obligations very seriously.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting and far-ranging debate. I am conscious of the time, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to go over the ground in any detail, and I am not going to do that.
The Minister, with great respect, has not really answered many of the questions that have been raised. We will come back to this, I am sure, possibly in the next group, but certainly these questions will come back on Report and will need to be answered in much more detail. So far as my own amendments are concerned—the definition point—the Minister has pointed out that nothing hangs on these words because they do not reappear elsewhere in the Bill. I was well aware of that when I tabled the amendment, but that raises the question: why brand the actions of these people coming here as unlawful or illegal, unless, of course, they are in breach of specific legislation, which is not always the case? That illustrates the unfortunate wording of Clause 1, which we will come back to.
As far as Amendment 3 is concerned, which deals with the question of guidance, I do not think, with great respect, that the ECHR memoranda amount to the kind of guidance that is needed in a situation where access to the courts is being denied. Something more specific is needed, and that is what the amendment is driving at. Perhaps we will come back to that at some later stage. For the time being, I think the simplest thing I should do, so that we can move on, is beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 24th May 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (24 May 2023)
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Paddick, who will respond later, I am pleased to suggest the deletion of Clause 1, largely because some parts of it have been scrutinised in huge detail but it has not had that scrutiny as a whole. Also, I suspect that many Members of the Committee are waiting for answers to some of the questions that they raised in the earlier debate. I particularly enjoyed the company of noble and learned Lords of all varieties. During the break, I was trying to think what we might call a collection of lawyers giving such erudite opinions. I have perhaps alighted on “a mêlée of lawyers”. It was interesting that, while they had very different views about what was happening, it was clearly not as simple as saying, “This will be the way in which matters arise from the clause”. We have not yet reached an understanding of the legal position, certainly on Clause 1(5).
The clause is the prism through which the whole Bill is understood. It speaks to its true purpose and impact: to prevent and deter people arriving in the UK irregularly by the threat of their removal, regardless of the rights and conventions disregarded in the process.
While stopping the boats has been the headline, at its heart this Bill enables removal as its primary aim and, in mandating it by statute, people will not have a chance to put their case for asylum in the UK and never be able to acquire leave to remain. There will be extremely limited opportunity for judicial oversight and detention powers will be significantly enlarged.
This is deeply concerning, and it is an approach for which the Government are not even able to provide an impact assessment to demonstrate its efficacy—we have been promised it, but it has not yet been published. Thankfully, the Refugee Council has done an impact assessment based upon the statistics and figures produced by the Home Office, so it would be useful to know, in his reply, how the Minister intends to answer this impact assessment, which is based upon their own figures, without providing the evidence themselves to be able to combat it.
I will not go through the whole detail of the impact assessment produced by the Refugee Council but will focus on some of the headlines. They say that, in the first three years, 30,000 people will be sent to Rwanda; the Government have said that is the total number of people who can be accommodated in Rwanda. Some 257,000 will have their claims rendered inappropriate, undesirable and certainly not admissible. Of those 257,000 people, 45,000 will be children.
Some 193,000 inadmissible people will remain in the United Kingdom because, apart from Rwanda, there is nowhere else to send them. They will be stuck in limbo indefinitely until such time as an alternative can be found. The cost of keeping that number inside the United Kingdom, based upon the current estimates provided by the Home Office, will be £9.6 billion in those first three years. On top of that, we have to add on the 181,000 people still inside the United Kingdom who are waiting for a decision.
It is doubtful, to put it mildly, that this will act as a deterrent to the boat owners. We are currently 20th in Europe, by headcount, on receiving migrants and therefore we are nowhere near the top of the league. The question for the Minister is: does he accept that these figures, which have been produced based upon their own, are correct? If they are not correct, when will we have the evidence to say that they are not?
In excluding the application of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to those covered by the Bill, there is an expressed acknowledgement that the Bill risks putting human rights at bay. It is interesting that paragraph 5 of the Government’s own European Convention on Human Rights Memorandum says that Clause 1(5), which removes Section 3,
“does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights”.
If that is true, I would like the Minister to tell me whether the removal of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, as contained in Clause1(5), will still mean that those who are seeking refuge here in the United Kingdom will be afforded the rights under the convention, which says that they will be allowed to have their case heard quickly by those who are detaining them. That is a right under the convention. Is that in contradiction to what the Government are proposing, and is it in contradiction to paragraph 5 of the memorandum which the Government have provided?
The concern, which has not yet been answered clearly and to the satisfaction of many Members of this Committee, about the human rights matters and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, is a concern also highlighted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which of course advises the Government. It advises them that it will create a two-tiered system of human rights protection in this country, whereby an individual’s human rights will be interpreted solely on the basis of how they entered the United Kingdom. That is wrong: a human right is a human right, regardless of whoever that human being is. Here, we are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the world: the female political activist from Iran; the gay man from Uganda; the young man escaping forced conscription in Eritrea; a family fleeing war in Sudan. Those are the people who are going to be affected most by this clause and this Bill.
The provision of Section 3 is an essential mechanism through which courts can correct human rights violations and enable individuals to access justice. It is a basic moral requirement for governing and one which is in the convention. In its report on the Bill, our Select Committee on Constitution confirmed there has been no Act of Parliament which has yet sought to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. By its application, Section 3 has also reduced the number of people currently pursuing litigation in Strasbourg because they have been able to secure justice domestically. This clause therefore brings with it the potential for extensive litigation in the future. Any observer of the proceedings on the previous group of amendments will have noted that this may well provide a fair playing field for lawyers as these legal battles develop down the line.
In taking this approach in Clause 1, the Government have accepted the likelihood that they could possibly lead to the UK breaching its international obligations. That puts us on that collision course with the Council of Europe and the ECHR. Having the High Commissioner for Human Rights send a letter to the Lord Speaker, in order that all Members of your Lordships’ House should be able to see the views of the human rights commissioner, was most telling. The last but one sentence was a message to all of us from the commissioner:
“it is now essential that Members of Parliament and Peers prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
That is the chilling message for us.
I heard earlier about the impact on the rule of law and the way in which these matters will be interpreted by those who look at the reputation of the United Kingdom. I noted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in the previous debate. The implications for how people will look at this country seem not yet to have been considered.
The fact that all the provisions in the Bill will have to be read in line with this clause means that it has profound cross-cutting detrimental implications for human rights. Parliament is here as the supreme lawmaker in the United Kingdom, yet this Bill hands broad lawmaking powers, which implicate fundamental human rights, to the UK Government in the form of delegated powers and explicit shifts of power. Our democracy depends on there being a clear separation of powers, and this Illegal Migration Bill represents an attempt at a power shift which enables the UK Government to play the roles of all three branches of state: lawmaker, adjudicator and administrator. In undermining the separation of powers in this way, both the UK’s constitution and our democracy is diminished.
Clause 1 is an extreme assault on the ability of people to have a fair hearing in the UK. The rule of law is essential, and undermining that will upset the influence we have as a country across the globe. The stated purposes, as I outlined at the beginning of the speech, to detain people and send them away from the United Kingdom without having their cases heard, will undoubtedly be debated further in the clauses that are to follow. However, it makes me feel very sad that, at this point, this clause, which lays out in such detail the purpose of the Bill, is one that runs so counter to the principles we uphold as a nation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German. In arguing for Amendment 4, I have already suggested why I think Clause 1 should be replaced by a clear commitment to key international obligations and a requirement that the Bill be read accordingly by officials, Ministers and the courts. However, whether or not noble Lords eventually agree with Amendment 4 down the road, Clause 1 in its current form must not stand part.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is no longer in his place, rather smelled the rat earlier. Clause 1 is not some innocuous attempt to repeat the Long Title and extrapolate it into the body of the Bill. Instead, it is a direction to the courts to ignore international obligations in favour of the Executive’s purposes—they are executive purposes because we are part of Parliament and we have not finished with the Bill yet. Ignoring international obligations was the subject of so much of the earlier proceedings of the Committee and I do not think anybody put the problem with that better than the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with his peanut analogy, to which I am sure many people will return for a very long time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, rather nailed it, if I may say so, by pointing to the particularly perverse nature of subsection (3). Language once crafted by the great Sir Edward Caldwell, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, for the purpose of ensuring human rights compatible interpretation via Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is now being appropriated—or, to use the eloquent language of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, subverted—for the purposes of ensuring that human rights are violated. For those reasons alone, Clause 1 should not stand part.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to come back to the points I raised in the first group, because they are the basis for my support for the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord German. I agree with very much of what he said.
I have two points. The first is why we have to have Clause 1(1) in the Bill at all. As the Minister explained, nothing hangs on “unlawful” or “illegal”. They are tendentious words and I find it uneasy to know what they mean unless they are properly defined. The Minister was not prepared to give me a definition which tied them down to what is in the Bill. I do not see why he is not prepared to do that. His answer was one which I think any parliamentary draftsman would give him, which is that nothing hangs on them because the words do not reappear elsewhere—but that does not remove the need for a definition.
The other point comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been saying about the combination of subsections (3) and (5). I find them really quite sinister. During the passage of the REUL Bill, we debated the need for parliamentary scrutiny in the face of an aggression by the Executive to reform the whole body of retained EU law without parliamentary scrutiny. Here we are again: the Executive assuming to themselves control over the convention without recourse to the courts. Indeed, there are other provisions in the Bill which exclude any kind of judicial scrutiny at all. That is taking matters a very long way and setting an uneasy precedent.
I would much rather this whole clause was taken out for these reasons. They give rise to real concerns about where this country is going, and indeed where legislation of this kind is going, in the future.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could come back to some of the questions the noble Lord failed to answer after the first debate, perhaps understandably in the desire to have a dinner break. Perhaps now he could apply himself to some of those questions.
First, could he please tell me which part of the refugee convention explicitly authorises a country to refuse to even hear the asylum request of a person who arrives on its shore? I would like to hear which bit of the convention says that that is a legitimate thing to do. The answer is not, I am afraid, to go into this rigamarole about returning to the first country they were in.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that nothing in the Bill requires the Government to take action contrary to our international legal obligations, but does he not agree that large parts of the Bill empower the Government, without further recourse to Parliament, to act contrary to our legal obligations? I would be grateful for an answer on that point too.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German has clearly set out why Clause 1 should not be stand part of the Bill, supported by, among others, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
The Bill is about depriving a particular group of people of their human rights. That is disgraceful. The impact assessments provided by NGOs that my noble friend cited show that the operation of the Bill will be hugely expensive and create a permanent underclass, unable to work and dependent on the state.
I asked the Minister at Second Reading, and I ask him again: when will this Committee receive the Government’s impact assessment? I am not talking about the equality impact assessment; I am talking about the financial impact assessment. Or do the Government consider that an impact assessment is unnecessary because they agree with the impact assessments that we have been provided with by NGOs? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, both highlighted the questions that they asked on the previous group, to which the Minister did not provide a satisfactory answer. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to answer those questions now.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will just add my voice to the requests from various noble Lords across the Chamber for specific answers to these specific questions that have been raised; I think the Committee deserves those answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 1 sets out the Bill’s overarching purpose and provides an overview of the provisions in the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent and deter illegal migration and, in particular, migration to the UK by unsafe and illegal routes, by requiring the removal from the UK of individuals who arrive in breach of immigration control.
Subsection (2) then summarises the key provisions of the Bill that advance this core purpose, including the duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who meet the conditions in Clause 2.
The numbers arriving on small boats in 2022 exceeded 45,700, and, as I set out at Second Reading, the Bill is essential to deal with these illegal, dangerous and unnecessary channel crossings. Putting the purpose of the Bill front and centre, right at the start of the Bill, will make it abundantly clear to all, including the illegal entrants themselves, NGOs, the courts and others, what Parliament’s intent is in enacting this Bill. As subsection (3) provides, the subsequent provisions in the Bill should be interpreted by the courts and others in line with this statutory purpose. Again, it is incredibly helpful to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, although I should add that subsection (3) simply reaffirms the established principle that the courts and others should interpret the Bill to deliver its purpose.
To assist this purpose, Clause 1 also disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. As I have already explained in the previous debate, the disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than strained interpretations by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights.
The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Paddick, asked about the impact assessment. We have already published an equality impact assessment and will publish an economic impact assessment in due course. The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the purported impact assessment published by the Refugee Council. We do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in that document. Any assessment of the impact of the Bill must also acknowledge the cost of not proceeding with it. Our broken asylum system is costing this country £3 billion a year, and over £6 million a day in hotel costs. This cannot continue. The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1—
Lord German (LD)
The noble Lord has made two points. I am particularly asking about this sentence in the Government’s ECHR memorandum—so the Government’s position. It says at paragraph 1.5 about the removal of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act:
“This does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights”.
Article 5 of the convention clearly states:
“Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court”.
So is the paragraph in the memorandum compatible with what I have just read out? If so, it means that when people are detained, they will be able to take their cases to a court in this country.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The answer to the question, if I have understood the noble Lord, is yes, but I think he misinterprets the purpose of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. It is not the clause by which the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights are reflected in UK domestic law. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act invites a court to construe parts of other domestic statutes or secondary legislation compatibly with convention rights. It does not mean that this is the mechanism by which convention rights are actionable in UK law, which is the standpoint that I think the noble Lord, Lord German, appears to suggest is the basis for his point. I fear that, as a matter of legal analysis, I think that to be wrong.
The noble Lord also seems to be labouring under an assumption that Clause 1 somehow upsets the separation of powers. It does not. It simply makes it clear that in interpreting this legislation, judges should seek to advance the purposes of the Bill. The Bill, and actions taken under it, are still clearly capable of review in the courts, and individuals can seek to prevent their own removal by making a suspensive claim. So, the courts are still involved, and regulations are still subject to approval by Parliament. I hope the noble Lord can rest assured that on closer inspection, this Bill leaves our separation of powers undisturbed.
I also want to pick up on a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who suggested that the Bill prevents human rights challenges. This is simply not the case. The Bill provides for two kinds of challenges that would have the effect of suspending removal. Other legal challenges, whether on European Convention on Human Rights grounds or other grounds, are not precluded, but they do not suspend removal. As I have indicated, Clause 1 makes the purpose of the Bill crystal clear for all to see. This will help to guide all decisions made by officials and immigration officers, Ministers, the courts and others in giving effect to the Bill. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me on this. The “strained decisions” of the courts is a phrase that has been used at least three or four times this evening. As a former judge, I find that difficult to understand. I would like some elucidation as to what is meant by “strained decisions” and what examples there are.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The context of a strained decision, as the noble and learned Baroness will be aware, are circumstances where there is an ordinary, natural reading of a statute but a judge feels constrained to interpret the words of a statute in a particular way to give effect to a convention right. As the noble and learned Baroness is aware, this is a fairly obvious application of the term, and it is quite usual for such—perhaps more difficult—interpretations to be described as “strained”. I can certainly identify a number of examples, and I will write to the noble and learned Baroness in relation to them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is a persistent non-answerer of questions; I am a persistent asker of questions. The two questions I asked—I will repeat them at dictation speed if he wishes—were echoed by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench spokesman and the Labour Front Bench spokesman. I think we are due a reply to both those questions. Does the Minister have the answers, or do I have to repeat the questions?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord does repeatedly ask questions, and I repeatedly answer them. As he identifies, there is a difference in interpretation of Article 31 of the refugee convention. I entirely appreciate that he does not accept my interpretation; and I do not accept his. That is where we are. It is not a rigmarole. This is a matter of position and legal analysis, and I am afraid that this is the Government’s position.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I believe I have answered both the noble Lord’s questions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The second question was: could the Minister please tell us that the phrase that he used, which was that nothing in this Bill “requires” the Government to take action contrary to our international obligations, does not obviate the fact that the Bill enables the Government so to do if they so wish and without any further recourse to Parliament?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is consistent with the normal practice in statute.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I might come back to the question asked by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I think the Minister said that he would write to her with examples of strained interpretation. I sat for many years on the Appellate Committee in the Supreme Court dealing with cases under the Human Rights Act, and I am not aware of any particular case where I was straining the language. I do not think I went very far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words.
I remember we were faced with a very difficult case involving two men who wanted to marry. In those days, the Marriage Act was very specific that marriage was between a man and a woman. We could have strained the language, but we did not do that; we said the provision was incompatible, which I think the Minister would recognise as a perfectly orthodox way to proceed. I think we were quite careful not to stray beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation. I would be very interested to know whether he has examples of where we really did go beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said, I will be writing to the noble and learned Baroness, but the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, set out various examples, including Ullah and Al-Skeini, and there are others. This has been a matter of jurisprudential development since the commencement of the Human Rights Act. It is a well-known evolution in interpretive principle, and it is that which is addressed by the provisions in this Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Following-up on my question about impact assessment, the Minister says that the Government do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs, but why not? How can they say that they do not recognise the impact assessments provided by NGOs when they do not have their own impact assessment with which to contradict them?
The Minister also talked about the cost of not enacting this legislation, in terms of the current cost of what I think he called the “broken asylum system”—of a Government who have been in power for 13 years. To what extent is the high cost of accommodating asylum seekers in the UK down to the fact that there is a huge backlog of applications that have not been processed by the Home Office, when some 15 years ago there were almost double the number of applications and hardly any backlog?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The Government do not recognise the figures in the purported impact assessments provided by the bodies that were referred to, such as the Refugee Council, because we do not recognise the assumptions and costs referenced in them. Furthermore, those documents do not acknowledge any assessment of the impact of the effect of not proceeding with the measures in the Bill.
Lord German (LD)
What is the Minister’s definition of “soon”, which he said was when we would receive the impact assessment? Will it be before the end of Committee, before the start of Report or after Report and before Third Reading? Perhaps he could be more explicit.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The impact assessment will be provided when the decision is taken that it is appropriate to disclose it.
Lord German (LD)
Does the Minister therefore think that it is appropriate that the body which is deciding about this Bill—Parliament—should receive the impact assessment, and should that impact assessment be with us before we complete Committee on the Bill? Surely that is appropriate. It is not for the Government to decide. It is for the Government to make their case to Parliament. If they cannot do so, because they have not got the document, because the document is not sufficiently robust or because it is not available, then the Minister should be able to tell us that right now, so that we know the basis on which we are judging this Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I can tell the noble Lord only that it will be published in due course and that this is entirely normal.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Frankly, this is unacceptable. Without being rude, I say that the Committee must at some point have the impact assessment. How on earth can we make many of the judgments on amendments and on the various things that we may wish to come forward with on Report if we do not have an impact assessment? It is normal practice for an impact assessment to be provided so that proper decisions can be made. Can the Minister at least go back to the department and say that this Chamber—I think I speak for everyone —is very unhappy that no impact assessment is due, and that we need one? Will he ask his department to provide one for us—at least well before Report?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
To add to that, we should have had a child rights impact assessment. That is supposed to be done right at the outset of the policy discussion. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have been published at the same time as the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The House knows my position. I have obviously heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have said, and I will of course take those points back to the department.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the duty to deport in Clause 2 does not apply retrospectively to those who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom before the Bill comes into force.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6, which stands in my name. There are some other amendments associated with it. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton for putting their names to Amendment 6. I am also grateful to the many well-known organisations that have made representations on these matters, including Justice and a number of others; some of them will recognise their views in what I am about to say.
These amendments are about a tension between what is fair and proportionate and what is unfair and disproportionate. Despite the fact that all those who have signed this amendment are lawyers, I do not use those terms in a narrow legal sense but as ordinary language, which I invite your Lordships to use as the template for your judgment.
I suggest that the Government are attempting to negate the legality of the exercise of rights permitted by UK law long after those rights have been exercised, and that to do so is unfair and disproportionate. We had a little discussion about strangeness in judgments that were allegedly made. In relation to these amendments, the only organisation that is doing something strange is the Government, because they are doing something that is very unusual and that falls straight into the literal definition of strange, although it is not unprecedented. The whole issue is about proportionality, as I have said, and Governments unfortunately do strange things fairly often.
These amendments deal with parts of the Bill that are retrospective in effect. Retrospectivity is contrary to the legal certainty of which we are proud and other principles that underpin our law. The amendments deal with Clauses 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21. Clause 2(3) means that the duty to deport would apply to an individual who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom on or after 7 March this year. The normal course of events is that a Bill comes into force when it is passed—at that moment when we hear that it has had Royal Assent and has gone through any other provisions contained in it as to when it comes into force. But this one is retrospective.
Clause 4(7) would disapply asylum or human rights claims which were made on or after 7 March 2023 but were simply awaiting a decision. There you are, awaiting a decision and, suddenly, the possibility of a decision is simply removed from you by the diktat of government.
Clause 5(12) and (14) would extend the removal provisions applied to those who had made an asylum or human rights claim on or after 7 March 2023 but were awaiting a decision. Clause 15(4) would give the Home Secretary retrospective power over the accommodation of unaccompanied migrant children—a very dramatic piece of retrospectivity.
Clause 21(8) to (10) would allow the Home Secretary retrospectively to revoke limited relief to remain, granted lawfully, to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, thereby undermining commitments made by Theresa May—she was referred to earlier—when she was Prime Minister. They were very carefully considered, and rightly much vaunted, provisions to protect people from modern slavery and human trafficking.
I think we have already heard today, and I have certainly heard it at other times, that the modern slavery provisions have been abused. Yes, to an extent they have, but I would challenge anyone who has experience in the law to find any provision of a comparable nature that has not been abused and misused. That is what courts are there for: to deal with the misuse and abuse of such provisions.
The point about legal certainty is that it requires that individuals know what their rights are and how they can be implemented and enforced. This is especially important at a time when, as we have heard repeatedly from the Minister, the Government have decided that the UK’s international law obligations are dispensable and that the fundamental rights of individuals can be cast aside. The importance of legal certainty, and having very rare retrospectivity in our legal system and our common-law traditions, has been stressed repeatedly by the senior courts.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I heap plaudits on the shoulders of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. That was worthy of a legal lecture. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, caught his plane, but that was a common-sense lesson in the law spoken with a great deal of humility. I will not call it a lecture because it was too humble and too articulate for that. I associate myself with all those remarks. I have signed only some of the amendments, but I am happy to endorse all the amendments that are against retrospection in the Bill. Our position on retrospection comes from common decency, common sense and common law before we get anywhere near ECHR obligations and other international obligations. Do not change the rules after the game has begun.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, is back in his place. He is a great one for the Clapham omnibus. I think this idea of changing the rules half way through the game is something that anyone on the Clapham omnibus or any lay person anywhere in our country would completely understand, and that is why all the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, are so important. It is profoundly unfair to say to people who are already in this country, who have already come to claim asylum, whether they will eventually succeed in their claims or not, should be subject to this new, punitive, retrospective regime.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is clear and articulate, but he is also forensic because there are some extreme situations in which retrospection is permissible and even I would support retrospection. The famous one is marital rape. We know that once upon a time in our country it was not considered rape for a man to rape his wife. That position was changed in the courts in relation to a particular case. This had been brewing for some time. People thought the law was out of step with contemporary views on equal treatment of women and what is acceptable even within marriage. That was changed in a single case in which a man was successfully prosecuted for raping his wife. He took his claim all the way to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and the court said no, this rape is so profoundly contrary to our international accepted norms that in this case we will accept that retrospection did not offend the common decency principle that you should not punish people retrospectively.
That is the kind of case we are talking about, in which it is acceptable to do that—not in this context. These are very vulnerable, desperate people. Whatever the views of noble Lords in this Committee about the acceptability of this regime, and we will disagree about that, in my view and that of many Members, as we have heard today, applying this to people who came here in good faith, and in many cases in desperation, on the understanding that the refugee convention would be applied in one way, is punitive and discriminatory, contrary to the convention. Retrospection adds insult to injury. I hope the Committee will not accept it and will instead support all the amendments that deal with retrospection in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to have been able to add my name to the noble Lord’s amendments. I am grateful to him for introducing them so clearly. I am conscious that my name is among those of noted advocates in different contexts.
We are already in an Alice in Wonderland—although I am not sure it is really a wonderland—world, where we are told that asylum seekers will know enough about UK restrictions and provisions to be deterred from trying to get here. I do not recognise that proposition. Added to that is the idea that people who are already here should have known what is in the Bill even before most MPs had an opportunity to pick up a copy of it.
The noble Lord referred to legislation coming into effect when it gets Royal Assent. Yes, of course it does, but very often—almost invariably—in a limited way. Some clauses come into effect, usually the jurisdiction and that type of thing, but many of the provisions and most of the legislation that we deal with have to wait for secondary legislation: that is, the provisions that implement what is in the primary legislation.
I absolutely agree with what has been said about certainty, clarity, predictability and so on. This Bill displays a casual attitude, which goes against not only legal principles but, as I think has been said, common decency. If I were to ask the Minister what is so compelling about the Bill that it should be an exception to all this, I have no doubt that I would be told, “We’ve got to stop the boats”.
As the noble Lord just said, the Nationality and Borders Bill—now Act—had the same policy objective, yet the channel crossings kept on rising and they have gone on rising. If I wanted evidence that retrospectivity had an effect in practical terms, I would have expected to find that they had come down in number since 7 March—but they have not.
I have two amendments in this group; my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville also has her name to the first of these, Amendment 9, which proposes to leave out Clause 2(7). Subsection (7) provides that
“limited leave to enter or remain given”
to an unaccompanied child “is to be disregarded”. It says, in effect that, for the purposes of Clause 3(1), we are to disregard what has already happened. It is another bit of retrospectivity. What use is the leave that is referred to in Clause 2(7)? To disregard it is unprincipled. Such leave should be taken into account in determining whether a child has leave to enter or remain; the Government have given it.
I will raise a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and myself, were discussing during the dinner break—it justifies our having had a dinner break, I think—and that is the question of adoption. I have not seen the comment made by the Children’s Commissioner, which no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will talk about, but I understand it suggests that, in the case of a child who has been adopted, and who falls within the provisions of the Bill as currently set out, that adoption in some way could be undone, despite the fact that the child has become a member of a British family.
I would have thought that the four conditions would not have been met, but we must be absolutely clear about this. If someone with the credentials of the Children’s Commissioner suggests that there is an issue here, we must have an absolutely clear statement from the Dispatch Box that that is not so and, preferably, an amendment from the Government making it clear that it is not so.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for having run a trailer for the question that I asked at a very helpful meeting that was arranged with the Children’s Commissioner.
Many of those coming here at the moment—apparently about 5%—are girls. They are generally in a much poorer state than the young men and boys, and many have been sexually assaulted or raped. I ask the Minister to be quite specific about this: in the event that one of these girls is pregnant and she decides either to give up the child for adoption or to keep the child herself, or in the event that she dies in childbirth either in this country or following deportation to Rwanda, and that child is then orphaned either in this country or in Rwanda, and that child is given up for adoption in this country, what is the status of that child? Would the child be at risk of being deported at the age of 18?
And what is the status of that child’s children, given that the child will have arrived in this country in utero, with no form of permission to come here, but would have had no choice in the process, and what is the position of the adopted parents? In the event that the child is not adopted but has been in foster care up until the age of 18, what is the status of that child? Can there be any retrospection applied to the ability of that child, who will have been completely brought up here, gone through schooling and had career prospects created in this country, simply because that baby arrived in utero?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name. A very similar amendment was tabled in the House of Commons by my honourable friend Stephen Farry MP. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, is unable to be present this evening, as she is in Brussels on a delegation, so she has asked me to speak to the amendment in her absence.
As the Minister knows, we had a debate along very similar lines yesterday evening on a regret Motion on the requirement for an electronic travel authorisation and the potential impact on tourism in Northern Ireland. Amendment 12 is primarily a probing amendment that would seek to exempt from Clause 2 of the Bill people crossing the border from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I will highlight two particular concerns about Clause 2, as it affects the land border on the island of Ireland.
The first is the enforcement of the provisions contained under Clause 2. The issue of who decides whom to check and on what basis, given that routine immigration checks across the land border on the island of Ireland do not happen, is an area of very grave concern. Maintaining the freedom to travel north-south without restrictions remains a key element of the peace process, and any changes to this could constitute a breach of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. The Government have confirmed—and it was reconfirmed last night by the Minister—that Irish citizens will be exempt from the need to apply for an ETA when travelling to Northern Ireland. However, there remains a considerable amount of legal ambiguity for residents in the Republic of Ireland who come from a third country whose citizens currently require a visa to enter the UK and therefore Northern Ireland.
During the debate on this issue in the House of Commons, examples were raised about the impact of Clause 2 on individuals legally resident in Ireland who cross the land border from Ireland to Northern Ireland, perhaps to visit friends or to go shopping, but who have not applied for an ETA. During the debate yesterday evening on the introduction of an ETA, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Murray—said that,
“those who are legally resident in Ireland may instead, if required by a UK immigration official, present physical evidence that demonstrates their legal residence in Ireland”.
He added that the Home Office would publish guidance in July on what would be considered as acceptable evidence. Therefore, following his statement yesterday, will the Minister tell us what the consultation process will be in advance of publishing this guidance? Will there be an information campaign to ensure that people are aware of these requirements? He will, I hope, be aware of the sensitivities of requiring people to carry official documentation when there is supposed to be unrestricted north-south travel.
During yesterday evening’s debate, the Minister said that
“prosecutions for illegal entry offences will focus on egregious cases and not accidental errors”.—[Official Report, 23/5/23, col. 836.]
Can he say whether it is the Government’s intention to publish guidance on what is likely to be defined as an egregious case? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he give that random checks by UK immigration officials will not result in the creation of a border on the island of Ireland by stealth?
My second area of concern is the potential risk of racial profiling resulting from these random checks. Migrant-led organisations such as the North West Migrants Forum have been raising concerns about the impact of visa requirements on the land border on the island of Ireland. They have highlighted the disproportionate impacts on black and minority ethnic, and migrant, people. Clause 2 risks exacerbating these issues and further hardening the border on the island of Ireland for some communities. The Minister will know that, in response to these concerns, Alyson Kilpatrick, the chief commissioner of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, has called for all journeys into Northern Ireland originating from Ireland to be exempt from the ETA provisions in the Bill. Can the Minister say what measures will be put in place to prevent racial profiling as a result of random checks and, in particular, what steps the Home Office will take to ensure proper training of UK immigration staff in monitoring these random checks?
Finally, can the Minister clarify whether non-visa nationals entering Northern Ireland and the UK from the Republic of Ireland without an ETA will impact the validity of deemed leave, as set out under Article 4 of the Immigration (Control of Entry through Republic of Ireland) Order 1972? If he does not know the answer to that one immediately, I will be happy to receive a letter if it could be placed in the Library.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I ought to apologise to the Committee. I failed to say that I was unable to speak at Second Reading; I listened to a great deal of it, but I had a commitment that I could not avoid. I also should have announced earlier that I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery and a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
I totally support Amendment 6. The retrospective effect is shocking but it has been dealt with by other people, so I will move to two other amendments that I am very anxious to say something about.
There is a mantra about the best interests of children. It has, rightly, been followed throughout the United Kingdom for many years. It originates in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as has already been referred to. It is also incorporated in the Children Act 1989, in which I was very much involved. Consequently, the clauses in the Bill—not just the one with which we are dealing, Clause 2—are utterly shocking in their derogation from the best rights of the child.
It is truly worrying that this is happening. Clause 2 specifically includes, of course, children and the ability to remove them. Part of Clause 2 includes the possibility of children not being included, but it leaves it to the Secretary of State as to when to exercise that discretion. I am extremely concerned about this. It is not only in Clause 2; it arises in other clauses which I will speak about later, so I will not refer to them now.
The other two proposals that I am concerned about are dealt with in Amendments 9 and 11. I very much support Amendment 9, for the obvious reasons of its connection with children. Indeed, what has been proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bakewell, about Clause 2, at page 3 on line 39, is replicated later in an amendment that I have put down.
I am also very concerned about Amendment 11. If one just thinks with a bit of reality about the Bill, one really important thing which is utterly underused is the prosecution of the perpetrators—not the people smugglers but the trafficking smugglers who are bringing in people for wicked purposes. If you are going to require a person who has been abused or exploited by a trafficker to go to Rwanda, and to give evidence from Rwanda, who on earth in their senses will be bothered to give evidence to help a prosecution in England if they are stuck in Rwanda? It is just not feasible.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble and learned Baroness makes a very strong case and I give her my full support.
My name is on Amendments 80 and 91 in this group. Amendment 91 is concerned with victims of human trafficking, but both fall at the hurdle of retrospection, as has been explained by the other signatories, in particular, my noble friend Lord Carlile, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee. I have the luxury of being able to add virtually nothing to the arguments already made.
I think the best description of the case against retrospection is in my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s explanation of Amendment 39, which
“seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.
What is the conceivable good reason? What are the very exceptional circumstances that the Constitution Committee suggested might excuse retrospection?
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that the Minister might try to say that stopping the boats is so exceptional as to justify retrospection. But there are a lot of other ways of dealing with that; for example, the safe passage visa argued for at Amendment 130. The Minister might say that that it is the cost of housing those who have come across the channel or in the back of a lorry and have been apprehended. But the costs of detaining and deporting those declared inadmissible under this Bill will be much higher.
That is the point the Refugee Council made in its impact assessment and estimate of the costs. It estimated a cost of £9 billion over the first three years. The Minister says that he does not recognise those numbers. That is not a sufficient argument. He needs to tell us what is wrong with those numbers and what his numbers are. It is not good enough just to sit there and say, “Well, I’m not going to engage in this debate because I don’t recognise the numbers”. I think retrospection is fundamentally unacceptable.
A few years ago, when I was driving up Headington Hill in Oxford, I forgot that, eccentrically, the set speed limit there is 20 miles per hour. I was required to present myself in Milton Keynes four months later for a speed awareness course, because I had been travelling at 27 miles per hour. Eccentrically, because I am a very eccentric person, I failed to ask my wife to see whether I could have a personal course. Nevertheless, I would have been very taken aback if, when I got to Milton Keynes—it was extremely hard to find the place and I was driving rather fast trying to find it—I had been told on arrival, “Actually, we have changed the penalty and we are going to export you to Rwanda”. I would have objected, and I object to retrospection.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I will focus on the opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. This clause is, in many ways, the nub of the asylum ban to which the Bill gives effect. To place a duty on the Home Secretary to remove virtually all those who seek asylum through irregular routes is an unprecedented step going far beyond simply giving her the power to do so. Here we are talking about those arriving not only by boats but by any irregular route; the boats are used as a justification for the Bill, because the Government know that we all want to see an end to those very unsafe journeys. The fact that it is a power only when it comes to children is a small mercy, given that they will be removed when they reach the age of 18. However, I will leave the treatment of children to a later debate, because there is still a lot to be said about the impact on children.
Calling those affected “illegal migrants” does not alter the fact that the majority are exercising their right in international law to seek asylum. That goes back to the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made earlier. In the words of the UN rapporteurs that I quoted earlier,
“the act of seeking asylum is always legal, and effective access to territory is an essential precondition for exercising the right to seek asylum”.
When she first introduced the Bill, the Home Secretary accused critics of naivety in suggesting that
“everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/23; col. 174.]
Could the Minister give us the evidence on which that assertion is based? It has been reported that the Home Office does not have that evidence, but, if it does, now is the opportunity to provide it.
No one is suggesting that everyone who comes here on a small boat has a genuine case for asylum, but we know that the majority are likely to have such a case. According to the Refugee Council’s analysis of official data, six out of 10 of those who crossed the channel in small boats last year stood to be recognised as refugees—yet they will no longer be able to make their case.
The Home Secretary has argued that the Bill’s critics
“ignore the fact that our policy does in fact guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 576.]
However, many of those whom she has given herself a duty to remove will genuinely need humanitarian protection. Yet there will be no mechanism for ascertaining whether that is the case before they are simply removed to be dealt with elsewhere, like a parcel marked “don’t return to sender”. To quote the UN rapporteurs again,
“any steps taken to legalize policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process are squarely incompatible with the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement”.
The Government talk as if we take a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, yet the opposite is the case— that point was made earlier today, though it seems a long time ago now. As I asked earlier, what happens if other countries follow our lead and also put up the “no asylum seekers here” sign? The chances are that the numbers seeking asylum in the UK will go up, not down.
In practice, the general view, including that of the Law Society, is that removal of those deemed inadmissible will be very difficult in the absence of adequate third-country agreements, making the Bill, in effect, unworkable. The fear of the Refugee Council, the UNHRC and others is that it will mean many thousands left in semi-permanent limbo, at risk of destitution. As I said at Second Reading, the mental health implications are likely to be serious, as spelled out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has many concerns about the Bill’s impact on mental health. For those who are removed to a third country, there is no guarantee that the country will be equipped to assess their asylum claim, so again they could be living in limbo, but out of sight and out of mind of the UK Government. How can all this be described as compassionate and humane, as Ministers repeatedly do?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for long, especially given the excellent speeches we have already heard delivered on this group, but I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about retrospection. I add my support, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and those other noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 11, on which we have already heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
A succession of migration, public order and modern slavery Bills in recent years have drastically raised the length of sentences and the severity of punishments that can be brought to bear on people traffickers and smugglers. While this may look tough, it is difficult to say that it has had much impact; indeed, the entire purpose of this Bill is to try to put a stop to arrivals which have not, apparently, been impacted on at all by the deterrents that are already in place. Nor is this surprising, given the very low number of prosecutions and convictions for such offences. Regrettably, it seems that smuggling is a crime with enormous rewards but relatively little risk for the perpetrators. Instead, we seem to almost exclusively punish those who are smuggled, often in highly dangerous circumstances.
We know that securing prosecutions and convictions is incredibly difficult because it requires the willing co-operation of those who have been smuggled. This is no small thing, for they are often traumatised and often in significant debt to the smugglers. They may have friends and family abroad or here in the UK who will be put at risk if they come forward. That difficulty is only exacerbated by our migration enforcement policies, which also deter victims from coming forward for fear of the hostile environment, detention and removal—including potentially to Rwanda or some other third country with which they have no connection. There is little incentive to co-operate with law enforcement, and significant risk in doing so.
My fear is that the Bill as a whole will not improve this situation, but at the very least, Amendment 11 provides a modest mitigation of the damage, without undermining the effect of the Bill overall, by exempting those co-operating with law enforcement from the prospect of removal. I hope that Ministers will listen to this, or at the very least come back with detailed proposals for how victims, both of smuggling and of trafficking, slavery and other forms of abuse, can be better supported to co-operate and help bring down those who have abused them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I shall speak to Amendment 9 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to which I have added my name.
This group of amendments concentrates on the duty to make arrangements for removal of migrants trying to enter the country. My noble friend set out very clearly the arguments for the amendments to which she has added her name. Amendment 9 proposes that the whole of Clause 2(7) should be removed. This would ensure that the treatment of unaccompanied children will be considered under existing UK domestic legislation, whereby Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in any of their functions relating to immigration, asylum or nationality.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendments in this group, including my Amendment 8; I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for adding his name to it. My amendment deals specifically with Clause 2(4) and would include persecution of a person on the basis of gender, sexuality and gender identity for the purposes of the third condition under which a person could be removed. However, I wish to now speak against Clause 2 and the duty to deport.
As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Bill seeks to give unprecedented powers to the Home Secretary to deport people without even a fair hearing of their case. The Home Secretary is in fact compelled to carry out that duty, even when it conflicts with human rights protections. The Bill seeks to limit the circumstances in which legal challenges could prevent a removal and allows the Home Secretary to add or remove countries to the list of so-called safe countries. This is even more worrying, looking at Schedule 1. At present, four of the countries on that list are not signatories to the UN convention, and some may not even have a functional asylum system. I will come back to this later on a further grouping but, if a person were deported or returned to most of the countries on the list in Schedule 1, they would face discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nigeria is one that springs to mind.
Without the requirement to make individualised assessments about whether it is safe to remove a person seeking asylum, and in providing very limited opportunities for individuals to present evidence of the risks that they could face, there is a real concern that many refugees will be deported to a country where their safety is at risk, or returned to their home country where their life could be threatened again, as I have said. The refugee convention makes it clear that return is prohibited to any country where a refugee could face persecution and not just their own.
I return now to the thinking behind my own amendment. In passing through a so-called safe third country, I refer to the internationally accepted definition of a refugee, which makes reference to five possible grounds for persecution: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion: UN General Assembly 1951, page 137. These grounds are also recognised as covering persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and gender-based human rights abuses.
Such examples also illustrate that persecution may happen where the state is not itself the perpetrator. Although some definitions have in the past required this, it is not universal. I believe it is therefore right to expand within the Bill the acceptance of individuals becoming refugees both when persecution is perpetrated by the state and where there is a failure of the state to provide protection against persecution by others. On that basis, I commend my amendment to noble Lords.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will quickly speak on Amendment 12, otherwise I fear there will not be a second voice in support of the very important issue of the potential impact of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has pointed out that the human rights memorandum does not include an assessment of compliance of the Bill with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, so my first question to the Minister is: will that memorandum be amended to include such an assessment?
The Bill raises significant concerns about compliance with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and with the Windsor Framework, because the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law was an explicit commitment of the Good Friday agreement and was achieved through the Human Rights Act. The Bill would constitute a breach of two core elements of this commitment: the guarantee of direct access to the courts and the obligation to provide remedies for breach of the convention, under the relevant chapter of the agreement. That chapter extends to everyone in the community, which includes asylum seekers and refugees.
I believe the Bill is also inconsistent with obligations under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which details various equality and non-discrimination EU directives with which Northern Ireland must keep pace. This includes the victims’ directive and the trafficking directive. The potential for the Bill to lead to failures in identifying and supporting trafficking victims, as well as the provisions on detention and removal, would place Northern Ireland in direct contravention of those directives. I believe that the Government’s explainer document on the Windsor Framework, Article 2, acknowledges that its protections apply to everyone who is subject to the law in Northern Ireland. Asylum seekers are part of the community and therefore protected by the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity chapter of the Good Friday agreement. I understand that in ongoing court proceedings—I prefer “continuing” court proceedings—the Home Office has not disputed the argument that the protections of the relevant chapter of the Good Friday agreement extend to asylum seekers and refugees.
The Bill instructs the Secretary of State to declare inadmissible any claim that removal of an individual would breach their convention rights, if that individual met the extremely broad criteria covered by the duty to remove. It says that this inadmissibility cannot be appealed, so if those provisions were applied to someone arriving in Northern Ireland, it would be a direct breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement because it makes convention rights inaccessible and restricts that individual’s direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention. Also, the application of the Bill to land border crossings could constitute a breach of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework and indeed of its very objectives.
To try to compress all that down, it is a matter of considerable concern that there is a failure to address compliance with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and more broadly with the Good Friday agreement, in the human rights memorandum to the Bill. I will end where I started, which is to ask the Minister whether such an assessment is going to materialise.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I have co-signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile or Berriew, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I will make some very brief comments on both.
The principle against retrospection in statutory provisions is very long-standing and well-established because it upsets settled status and settled rights. It follows that it can, save in exceptional circumstances, operate both unfairly and so as to create legal uncertainty in the way that people conduct their affairs.
The best example of where retrospection would be appropriate is in relation to a finance Bill and Act giving effect to a Budget, with the time lapse between the two enabling people to enter into tax avoidance arrangements. But here it would be utterly impossible—certainly without any credibility—to suggest that those who are either crossing the channel or promoting that crossing unlawfully or illegally have organised their affairs, or were ever likely to organise them, on the basis of the complex provisions of this statute. I have never heard anybody suggest to the contrary. For my part, I can see absolutely no sound reason why the normal rule—which is one of fairness and certainty, as I said—should be upset in this case.
I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, because extending the definition of the third condition to include gender identity and sexual orientation brings to the forefront something which has plainly been ignored in the drafting of the Bill. There is absolutely nothing in Schedule 1 which excludes from the places to which people can be removed those LGBT people who would undoubtedly face extreme persecution, varying from sentence of imprisonment to death and assault. Raising this issue here will, I hope, direct the Government and the Bill team to a serious lacuna in the legislation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I can be very brief. I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 39, which raises the same point as Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on retrospectivity. I support all the amendments in his name to that effect. The only point I would have added would have been to read out my explanatory statement, which my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has already done, placing particular stress on “for good reason”. If the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, I hope he can give the good reason in each case.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment 6 and the reasons given by some of your Lordships for opposing the start date of 7 March 2023—a criticism made on grounds of retrospection. There is nothing unclear about the start date, and nothing hidden: 7 March is published as the start date for the Bill itself. It is the date of the Bill’s First Reading. I am also slightly puzzled by the desire to omit from subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 people who enter this country in breach of our Immigration Rules and do not come from a country in which their life and liberty are threatened.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The noble Baroness has had quite a lot to say today about the wishes of the people of this country. Would she like to tell us what her evidence is that the wish of the people of this country is that people should be retrospectively affected by legislation of which they plainly had no awareness at the time when it had its First Reading?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As far as I can see, the Bill was published on 7 March. It was very well publicised at the time. It is designed to deter—
Baroness Lawlor
I think the noble Lord is not aware of the very good access to news which people coming to this country have—and which people traffickers have. It was no surprise that this Bill had its First Reading on 7 March.
I conclude on a point made earlier. This is not a Bill against asylum seekers; it is a measure to deter and prevent those coming to this country by unsafe and unlawful routes.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will go where I was going without being distracted. I am aware that there is no Green group name on any of these amendments, which is the result of an administrative hitch earlier in the week, so I will be very brief—I am also aware of the hour. I shall make just three points about this group of amendments.
First, we have discussed the issue of retrospectivity a great deal. I align myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, among many others, who talked about approaching this as a lay person, which indeed I do as a non-lawyer. However, I have had a lot of contact with the law through my time as a journalist, and one of the things you learn is that the nature of the law is that they do not make laws retrospectively. That is in the general public understanding of what is law, so I associate myself with all the anti-retrospectivity amendments.
However, I particularly want to address Amendment 91, to which there has not been much attention given, which aims to prevent victims of human trafficking and modern slavery from having their leave retrospectively revoked to permit their deportation. This is leave granted to people under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. I am sure many noble Lords taking part in this debate can think of victims of trafficking and modern slavery whom they have met. I am thinking of one in particular, whom I will not identify in detail. She was a person who had clearly been enormously mentally scarred by the experience of losing control of her own life and being a slave. To think that we would put them in this position again, having granted them status and then snatched it away, highlights the emotional damage that that would do to people.
Secondly, my favoured position is to write out this whole Bill but, if we do not do that, then that Clause 2 should not stand part. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a powerful speech on this point. I want to raise a point no one else has raised. I ask the Minister to answer, although I expect he will be reluctant to, so maybe some of the other legal minds in the Committee can be put to this. Let us imagine that, after the next election, we have a change of government, and there has been written into law a duty for the Secretary of State to deport people. There is going to have to be an emergency Bill passed as soon as possible to stop that. I very much hope that would be the case for whoever the next the Government are. But there is going to be a total legal mess, I would imagine, when the people of the country have elected a Government standing on a different platform—I would hope—but that is the law of the land. I am not sure where that would leave us; I do not know if anyone could help me with that one.
I also want to address why the duties to remove in Clause 2 should not remain. Some 90% of the people in need of international protection who come to the UK could not do so directly as defined by this Bill. The refugee convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on refugees for how they have entered the country, because most people have no choice but to enter a country irregularly. The convention explicitly states that you do not have to come directly to the country; there is no requirement of “first safe country”. That is the convention, yet we are writing this piece of this Bill. This clause simply must not stand part.
Thirdly, I want to identify particularly with Amendment 8. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, have already made this argument very powerfully. All I want to say is that my Second Reading speech addressed this issue at some length, and I would like to stress the Greens’ support for Amendment 8 in particular.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, there are two matters in this group that are in my name, but I shall address just one of them briefly—the other matters having been covered by earlier speakers—and that is the issue about coming directly to the United Kingdom.
The UNHCR, in its legal opinion, says that the vast majority of people in need of international protection will meet those criteria of not being able to come directly to the UK. Almost 90% of people in need of international protection globally come from countries where it is impossible to come directly to the UK—there are no direct flights, nowhere to get a visa, nowhere to make any of the paper arrangements we have set up. We will come to the issue of safe routes later, but the question I have to ask relates to the role of the UNHCR in supporting those who are in need of protection.
Apart from the one relating to Afghanistan, the UNHCR states that there are only two active legal resettlement schemes in the UK. The first is the UKRS, which is the UK resettlement scheme. Since 2020, the UNHCR
“has been requested by the Government not to submit new cases other than in extremely compelling circumstances and on an ad-hoc basis, amounting to a handful per year”.
The second one is the mandate resettlement programme, which provides a pathway for refugees:
“An average of fewer than 25 people a year come to the UK on this route. … they must be identified and referred by UNHCR in accordance with criteria agreed upon with the receiving State”.
So, essentially, the UNHCR has been told that it can have probably about 25 and perhaps five or six more. That is the total—apart from the Afghani stream—from the resettlement schemes that are open. In his reply, perhaps the Minister could tell us how people can get to the UK directly from the places from which they are seeking refuge, and also how these people can be filtered so that only the 30 or so people who can currently come per year will be accommodated.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this group covers a wide range of amendments concerning the duty to make arrangements for removal. To summarise, it shows that the Government have not thought through the issues that arise from Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, have spoken compellingly about the unfairness and uncertainty of retrospection. My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke about the impact on unaccompanied children affected by the retrospection caused by Clause 2. My noble friends Lady Suttie and Lady Ludford spoke about the extreme dangers around the impacts of Clause 2 on the arrangements between the north and south of Ireland. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke about the perhaps unintended consequences of impeding the prosecution of traffickers and perpetrators of modern slavery.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, spoke about neglecting issues around sexual orientation and gender identity, which could be an extreme risk to people if they were to return to certain countries; they are completely left out of the Bill. My noble friend Lord German raised the important point about what it means when somebody has not come directly to the UK, and what the higher courts in this country have said about that. It was debated endlessly during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act but goes even further in this Bill, which is why Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, much of what I want to say about Clause 2 standing part of the Bill will be reflected in what I say on Amendment 13 in the next group, as otherwise I will end up repeating myself.
I very much welcome Amendment 6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the points he made on the retrospective nature of some of what is included in the Bill. It was a very powerful contribution that the Committee will need to reflect on. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, about the need to reflect sexual orientation and gender identity, is important as well. On Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, this issue of what is a safe country, and not being able to transit through a safe country, bedevils the Bill. The Minister cannot answer the question of how somebody gets here without going through a safe country if there is not a safe and legal route without flying. It is not feasible or possible.
I have always found astonishing the argument that nobody can come here if they travel through a safe country. If you take that to its extreme, it will mean that countries such as Italy, Spain and Turkey would have every single asylum seeker there was, because hundreds of thousands come through those countries. Are we saying that they should stay there? It is a shared responsibility. In Africa, some of the poorest countries in the world take millions of refugees. It is just not a feasible or credible statement to say that if somebody comes from a country where they are not threatened, they should stay there and claim asylum. It would essentially mean that no one would ever come here or be able to arrive in this country. It is a nonsense statement.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their support for my Amendment 11. I tabled it as a marker because it seeks to provide an exemption from the duty to remove for those people co-operating with the police on people smuggling. For the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, the right reverend Prelate and others pointed out, that co-operation with the police is essential for us to get the criminals who are involved in people smuggling.
In Clauses 2 and 21 the Government talk about exemptions from the duty to remove for people who co-operate with the police on modern slavery and trafficking. One of the reasons I have tabled my amendment is because I want the Minister to spell out what that actually means, apart from the obvious. People need to know and understand that the Government are saying that, if the police believe that you have been trafficked or identify you as a victim of modern slavery, you will absolutely be exempted—no exceptions—from the duty to remove under Clause 2. It does not include people smuggling, which is why I have put it in my amendment, but it also tests, in Committee, what the Government mean by Clause 21 in particular, about exempting people with respect to modern slavery and trafficking. Does that mean exactly what it says—that those people will be exempt from the duty to remove? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, Clause 2 is the centrepiece of the scheme provided for in the Bill. At its heart, the Bill seeks to change the existing legal framework so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or to a safe third country.
Clause 2 seeks to achieve this by placing a legal duty on the Secretary of State to remove those who come to the UK illegally. The duty applies where an individual meets the four conditions set out in Clause 2, which I will briefly rehearse.
The first condition is about the lawfulness of the person’s entry into the UK. This underlines the Government’s commitment to take all possible measures to stop people making dangerous journeys to enter the UK illegally, particularly across the English Channel.
The second condition is that the individual must have entered the UK on or after 7 March—the day of the Bill’s introduction in the House of Commons, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor noted. This is a crucial condition that will ensure that we do not create a perverse incentive for migrants to take illegal and dangerous journeys in an attempt to avoid being subject to the Bill’s provisions. I will return to this point in a moment.
The third condition states that the duty will apply to an individual who has not come directly from a country in which their life and liberty were threatened. That means that anyone entering the UK from another country where their life was not in danger will fall within the scope of the duty. This is consistent with our obligations under the refugee convention and upholds the principle that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is manifestly no need for people to make those dangerous journeys when they are already in a country where they are safe or could, in the case of France, for example, claim asylum. It places themselves and others at risk and puts money into the hands of organised criminals.
The fourth and final condition is that an individual requires leave to remain but does not have it. The duty to make arrangements for removal is subject only to very limited exceptions signposted in Clause 2(11), which we will come on to at a later date when we come to a later clause.
The fundamental point is that, subject to these limited exceptions, the Home Secretary will be under a clear and unambiguous legal duty to make arrangements for the removal of persons from the UK who satisfy those four conditions. She should not be deflected from fulfilling that legal duty. These provisions make it very clear that if you meet these four conditions you will not be able to make a new life in the UK.
A number of the amendments in this group relate to the four conditions I have described. Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, relates to the second condition. In effect, this and other amendments tabled by the noble Lord seek to do away with the backdating of the duty to remove so that it applies only to those who illegally enter the country from the date of commencement rather than from 7 March. Amendment 39 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, deals with the same point.
The explanatory note to the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 39 sums up the position well, as was noted by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It says:
“This amendment seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.
I was challenged by the noble and learned Lord to explain what that good reason was. The Government entirely agree with the explanatory note from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Committee will know that it is not uncommon in exceptional circumstances for legislation to have retrospective effect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, noted. But as the noble and learned Lord has acknowledged, there must be good reason for such exceptions. I suggest to the Committee that there is good reason in this instance for retrospection.
I would say that the retrospective nature of these provisions is critical. Without it, we risk organised criminals and people smugglers seeking to exploit this with an increase in the number of illegal arrivals ahead of commencement of the provisions in the Bill. This would likely lead to an increase in these unnecessary and dangerous small boat crossings and could even place more pressure on not only our asylum system, but our health, housing, educational and welfare services, not to mention our services for saving lives at sea.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Can the Minister explain why in that case the Nationality and Borders Act does not have a retrospective clause? What evidence does the Minister have, having announced the retrospective elements and that the provisions apply from when the Bill was first introduced into the House of Commons? What deterrent effect have we seen in terms of reducing the number of boat crossings?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certainly. The structure of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was very different. It was not a Bill like this one, which focuses on a duty to remove and is targeted at creating a disincentive effect on people crossing the channel. This is a very differently structured piece of legislation and therefore the retrospective element is a vital and logical part of the scheme in the Bill.
As to the evidence of the deterrent effect taking effect from the date of introduction, this is seen potentially in the fact that—and one can only draw inferences from the figures—it would appear that the numbers are down on this time last year. I accept that the weather has facilitated a good measure of that, but it is certainly right to say that had there not been a retrospectivity measure in the Bill I would conjecture that the numbers crossing the channel would have been far higher. It would have been easy for people smugglers to advertise their services—and I will come to this in a moment—as something of a fire sale, saying, “Get across the channel now. Here’s your opportunity before these measures in the Government’s new scheme take effect”.
The provision in the Bill does not mean that all those who enter the country illegally on or after 7 March will be subject to the duty to remove in Clause 2(1). We have expressly provided in Clause 4(7) that asylum and human rights-based claims made on or after 7 March may be decided by the Secretary of State prior to the commencement of Clause 4. Where a person is then granted leave to remain, they will not be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, noted that retrospectivity is problematic because it impinges on legal certainty. The key here is that we have been clear in the Bill and in the public messaging—for example, in the statement given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the other messaging—that this is the date when the scheme will commence. That means that there can be no uncertainty about the Government’s intention. While I accept that this is unusual in our legal system, it is not unheard of. The Revenue sometimes announces intended changes to tax law which are then later introduced by Finance Bills but backdated to the date of the announcement. In those cases, it is usually to prevent a closing-down sale of improper tax structures. There, retrospectivity is designed to protect tax revenue. Here, it is to prevent a closing-down sale of dangerous, sometimes fatal, channel crossings in the lead-up to some prospective date. We do not take this step lightly but feel it is necessary to reduce this perverse incentive.
I say “reduce” advisedly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has pointed out that migrants on the other side of the channel may not be as well advised as some taxpayers, but it is clear they are alive to changes in policy in the UK. For example, it is clear that announcements of a change in the approach to Albanian illegal migrants has led to a very significant dropping off of that cohort in the small boats, even before removals have begun at scale. This shows that the criminal gangs and migrants are aware of policy announcements in the UK, as my noble friend Lady Lawlor has pointed out. Similarly, the original announcement of the Rwanda scheme was known in the camps in Calais, with some suggesting in reporting that asylum seekers sought to go to the Republic of Ireland instead to avoid being sent to Rwanda. Indeed, the then Taoiseach Michael Martin noted a surge in applications and partly blamed the Rwanda announcement.
While clearly announcing the start date of the new scheme may not have had a decisive impact, it is important to do everything we can to discourage those dangerous journeys. Announcements such as this can have an impact on behaviour, and we hope they will reduce the incentive for a surge in dangerous crossings, perhaps at a time when the weather makes crossing very dangerous. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, these are the compelling and exceptional circumstances that justify this decision.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister for intervening at this late hour. If I understand him correctly, it will now be permissible to legislate retrospectively in any case of criminality because, by definition, it is very important not to have a fire sale. If we believe that certain conduct is wrong and there is a gap, whatever that conduct is, and if it is a serious enough matter to legislate in criminal terms, for example, it would now and in the future be permissible to legislate retrospectively.
My second point is that the Minister seems to suggest, like his noble friend Lady Lawlor, that because Ministers have announced a prospective change in the law, that should be good enough, because presumably we now believe that executive fiat and ministerial announcements and pronouncements are enough to suggest to people, not just in our own country but across the world, that that is what the law is and will be and always was. Have I understood the Minister correctly on this point?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, I am sorry to say. Clearly the position is not that in every case where there is a change in the criminal law it should have retrospective effect to the date of the Bill’s introduction. That is absolutely not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this context, to prevent a rush of people into these dangerous vessels, crossing the channel at a time when there is potentially bad weather, those were the special circumstances that justified retrospection in these provisions. To go back to one of the last major Bills to go through your Lordships’ House, which became the Public Order Act, I would not dream of suggesting that the offence of locking on should have had retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill; there would have been no exceptional circumstances for that.
While I am on the topic of the speech just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I would like to address her suggestion that limited retrospectivity will lead to refoulement. This is clearly not the case. I can do no more than repeat that this Bill does not allow refoulement. It does not allow the Government to remove individuals to places where they will be in danger—and that, quite rightly, is under the supervision of the courts.
In particular, I would refer noble Lords to the clauses in the Bill relating to suspensive claims—Clauses 37 to 50—which allow Upper Tribunal judges to determine whether an individual faces a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”. If such a case is made out, the individual will not be removed to that place.
Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, relates to the third condition and to the issue of whether a person has or has not “come directly” from a country where their life and liberty were threatened. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people arriving through safe and legal routes rather than those who are strong or rich enough to have journeyed through safe countries and paid the people smugglers before they reach the UK.
In answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord German, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, people seeking sanctuary should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is no uniform international interpretation of the many concepts of the refugee convention. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides the treaty to be interpreted “in good faith”. It is on this basis that we have set out our interpretation of “come directly” through Clause 2. I might add that, were Amendment 7—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister is beginning to address the question that I have raised twice: why should we accept this Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over and above that of the body that is given authority by the UN to interpret it for the international community? Every other organisation that has briefed us has followed the UNHCR in its interpretation and there are very real fears of refoulement. As a noble Lord opposite said earlier. the reason given seems to be “Because we say so”, as you would say to a child. That is not good enough. We want to know exactly why we should accept the Government’s interpretation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. The reality is that the Government take legal advice. The UNHCR is clearly a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention. Some parts of the UNHCR have views on the Government’s position, but it is always worth recalling that the UNHCR itself maintains refugee arrangements and accommodation in Rwanda. In December, the High Court considered the submissions from the UNHCR and discounted what was said. So I invite the noble Baroness, rather than simply taking the Government’s word for it, to review the judgment of the Divisional Court, a careful and considered judgment, which considered the legality of the removal scheme.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister has latched on to the wrong point—not the point that the UNHCR has made again and again that it is not compatible with the obligations of our membership to refuse to consider a request for asylum. It is nothing to do with Rwanda; it is to do with refusing a request for asylum. The Minister admitted earlier that there is no explicit provision in the refugee convention that permits us to do that. That is the basis of the UNHCR’s position. Frankly, his suggestion that there are differences of opinion in the UNHCR is pretty contemptible. The High Commissioner for Refugees has said he does not think this is compatible.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I again find myself at odds with the noble Lord. The reality is that the UN itself relocates refugees to Rwanda. As I say, there is no suggestion that people’s asylum claims will not be dealt with under this scheme; their asylum claim will be dealt with in Rwanda once they are removed, and that is entirely compatible with the convention. There is no requirement on a member state of the convention to determine asylum claims within its own territory. That is abundantly plain.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister says there is no requirement in the convention for a convention state to handle an asylum request on its own territory, but surely the deal with Rwanda rules out our ever hearing these cases. In Rwanda, people are allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, but their case for asylum in the United Kingdom will never be admitted. Is that not correct?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is entirely correct, yes. Their asylum claim will be determined by the Government of Rwanda. That is the system that the High Court found to be entirely lawful in December.
If Amendment 7 were agreed, removing the third condition, the duty to remove would also apply to those who had come directly from a country where their life and liberty were threatened, and I am sure that is not what the noble Lord would want.
Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, also relates to the third condition. I put it to the noble Lord that the wording in Clause 2(4), referring to threats by reason of a person’s race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, reflects the definition of a refugee in Article 1 of the refugee convention. We have heard a lot today about adherence to the refugee convention and other international treaties. There may be a case for amending the definitions in the convention to reflect the world of today rather than what it was in 1951, but we should not put the cart before the horse and insert wording in the Bill at odds with the current wording of the convention.
I add that the reference to membership of a particular social group may, on the facts of a particular case, cover a person fleeing persecution on the basis of their gender, sexual orientation or gender identity. Lastly, it is not right to suggest, as the noble Lord does, that the Bill removes individualised assessments. It does not. Officials will make assessments and those can be challenged, including by way of suspensive claims, as we have already discussed.
Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would remove subsection (7). This ties in with the fourth condition, which is that a person requires leave to enter or remain in the UK but does not have it. We will have a fuller debate about unaccompanied children later in Committee, but subsection (7) recognises that the duty to remove does not apply to unaccompanied children, and where they are not to be removed under the power conferred in Clause 3, the expectation is that they will normally be provided with temporary permission to remain in the UK until they are 18 years old under provisions to be made in the Immigration Rules. If subsection (7) is removed from Clause 2, an unaccompanied child given this temporary permission to remain would not then satisfy the fourth condition, thereby undermining our approach to unaccompanied children. As I say, we will have a fuller debate on this issue when we get to Clause 3, which feels like some time away.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also has Amendment 10, requiring the Home Secretary to inform people when it has been decided that the duty to remove applies to them. Such information would include providing details of any evidence relied upon to make that decision. We have already provided, in Clause 7(2), for a person to be issued with a removal notice detailing, among other things, their right to make a suspensive claim. It is implicit in these provisions that the issue of a removal notice follows a determination that the person satisfies the four conditions in Clause 2. The four conditions relate to issues of fact. A person in receipt of a removal notice will themselves know, or ought to know, whether the conditions apply. If they have compelling evidence that the Home Secretary has made a mistake of fact, they can submit a factual suspensive claim to challenge the removal notice. We will return to those provisions, too, in due course in Committee.
Amendment 11 was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others. As we will come on to in later clauses, we have made particular provision for potential victims of modern slavery who are co-operating with law enforcement agencies, and it is necessary for them to remain in the UK in furtherance of such co-operation. In later debates, we will address the wider issue of the progress being made by the NCA and others in tackling the criminal gangs that are not perpetuating human trafficking but are engaged in people smuggling. It is worth also noting, in response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that if an individual who had been trafficked came forward, they would be sent only somewhere where they would be safe—whether their own home country, if it was safe, or a safe third country. In all cases, they would no longer be in the control of their trafficker.
A key purpose of the Bill is to break the business model of the people smugglers. That will not happen if we undermine the central tenet of the Bill: that if you come here illegally you cannot stay, and instead you will be liable to detention and promptly removed. If we build exceptions and loopholes into the fabric of the Bill, it will be undermined and will not work. If those coming over on small boats have information that will assist in the investigation of people-smuggling offences, they can provide it, but this cannot be a reason to delay removal. Any co-operation with law enforcement agencies can, if appropriate, continue from abroad. If the experience of the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that a lot can be achieved remotely. Indeed, our domestic courts and law enforcement are well used to this by now.
Finally, Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, deals with the issue of entry into the United Kingdom over the Irish land border. We discussed this at length during the dinner break business yesterday in relation to the recent SI on electronic travel authorisation. I note that this is a probing amendment relating to the concerns that have been raised regarding tourists and other people who inadvertently arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland. As is currently the case, tourists from countries requiring visas to come to the UK as visitors should obtain these before they travel. That is as it should be. That said, I recognise the issue she has raised and accept that some individuals may, entirely unwittingly, enter the UK without leave via the Irish land border, as I said yesterday.
We are examining this issue further. I would point the noble Baroness to the regulation-making power in Clause 3, which will enable us to provide for exceptions to the duty to remove where it would be appropriate to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me about the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2. The short answer is that the child will not satisfy the conditions in Clause 2, but I will write to her with a more detailed explanation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about compatibility with article 2 of the Windsor Framework. There is a later amendment to which she has added her name, Amendment 137, on this very issue. We will come on to that later in the Committee.
As I indicated at the start, this clause provides the foundations for the Bill as a whole. It is fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme and my fear is that the amendments put forward would serve only to weaken the effectiveness of the scheme. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, there was an issue about adoption of a child who came to this country, or came in the womb of somebody arriving in the country, into a British family. Are they at danger under the Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me: as I thought I said, the status of a child born in the UK to a woman who meets the conditions in Clause 2 is that they would not satisfy the conditions in that clause. I realise that there were a number of hypotheticals in the way that that question was written. If I may, I would like to go away and think about them. I will reply by letter in due course, and obviously publicise that letter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister talked about an amendment that I had co-signed. Was it Amendment 132?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Sorry—I will look and check that it covers the point.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister, not to my surprise, did not address my question about what happens after the election. I will phrase the question another way. In your Lordships’ House, we often ask about “must” and “may” provisions. Rather than a duty to remove, surely the Government could make it that the Secretary of State “may” remove. That would allow this Government to act as they wish but would not attempt to tie the hands of any future Government.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid the structure of the Bill is that it creates a duty on the Secretary of State. That is in order to send the deterrence message that entering the country illegally is unacceptable and to reduce the number of people crossing the channel. I am afraid to say that it is a logical step that if the Government were to change, then it would be open to that other Government to pass legislation of their own. That is democracy.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his patience, but it is not quite right that that is the reason for the “must”, is it? It is not to send a signal to all those people overseas who are reading our draft legislation; it is to give a direction to our courts. The Home Secretary is choosing to tie her own hands. It is really in order to oust the jurisdiction of the courts and their ability to say that where the Secretary of State has a choice, they should exercise that choice in compliance with international law.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the intent is to send a message—that people really must not make these dangerous journeys across the channel. As I say, all the avenues of legal challenge are open but there are only two categories that will suspend removal. There are a number of provisions—I am sure the noble Baroness and I will be debating them at length over the coming days in Committee—and that is how the Bill will have its effect.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Could I ask that the Minister copies everyone who took part in this debate into the letter he is going to send, because it is of interest to many of us?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will certainly place a copy in the Library of the House. I hope that suffices. I am sure that my private office can work out who is here and is participating.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the noble Lord stands up again, I feel I should bring this debate to a close. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who supported the amendments in my name. A number of other very interesting issues have been raised. I have no doubt that we will be returning to a number of them on Report; I certainly will.
The reasons given by the Minister for what he recognises is the exceptional course of retrospectivity—I am using his words—involved conjecture: a conjecture that a very small change in the numbers, for whatever reason, of people coming on boats shows that the retrospectivity is working. I have been a Silk for 39 years. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we have probably met more criminals than the rest of this Committee added together. My observation would be a rather less naive one than that made by the Minister. Criminals are infinitely adaptable. If the Government think that the boats are being stopped, it is not evidence that fewer people are coming into this country, because there are different ways and means of doing it.
From what we have heard today—maybe on Report we will hear something different—I really believe that the case for exceptionality is far from proved. I take the view, therefore, that we will have to come back to these subjects. I urge the Government to meet noble Lords who have spoken in these debates before Report so that we can see whether there is some common ground we can find that will make this a better Bill rather than a battleground in your Lordships’ House. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 5th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (5 Jun 2023)
Lord Coaker
“Negotiating objective: migration removal agreements(1) It must be a negotiating objective of His Majesty’s Government to negotiate with relevant States formal legally binding agreements to facilitate removals required under section 2.(2) Relevant international partners include (but are not limited to) the States listed in section 57.(3) Within the period of one month beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and every three months thereafter, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish a report outlining the status of negotiations with relevant States on the establishment of formal legally binding agreements to facilitate removals, and(b) lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to seek formal return agreements with other states, including Albania and EU member states, and to report regularly to Parliament on the status of those negotiations.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Murray—and the Committee will know straightaway that this is obviously a probing amendment, but it is none the less significant, notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s visit to Dover this morning and some of the comments and announcements made there. It is particularly important, because some of our objections to the Bill deal with not only some of the principles but some of the practicalities and what we regard as the unworkable measures within it. With this amendment, I hope to concentrate more on the practicalities and on how some of this is simply unworkable, or certainly needs more justification from the Minister. Groups of amendments that we may debate later today or on another day deal with many of the principles underlying criteria for returns and those who are detained before they are returned. But, through Amendment 13 in particular, I hope we can deal with how all this will work.
I will cite a number of facts, and I am particularly keen for the Minister to understand that I am using Home Office figures. It is always helpful to use the Government’s figures to highlight some of the points because, presumably, they do not question their own figures, although sometimes I wonder whether that is the case. To help the Minister, I say that these are the latest figures—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is always keen for us to use the latest figures—from 25 May 2023. If the Minister has any from after that, some of what I will say clearly may not be as accurate as it might be—but it is important to confirm the context within which we debate the returns agreements.
The number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision is now 172,758, and it continues to rise. The number of asylum seekers waiting for more than six months for a decision is 128,812. Of these, 78,954 are legacy cases. On small boats, starting with 2022—I know that the Prime Minister was keen to talk about 2023—can the Minister explain to the Committee how on earth the Government have got themselves into a situation where we need an illegal migrants Bill when, of the 45,000 people who crossed in small boats last year, only 1% have been processed? How on earth is that a policy? It does not matter what policy you have if the systems do not work, or only process that amount. How on earth are we supposed to get on top of this problem, which we all want to deal with?
So far, 7,610 people have come across in small boats this year. Where are the 4,657 people who have come across since 7 March detained? What is the Government’s presumption about where they will be returned to? Let us start with the small boats that have arrived since 7 March. We will come to discuss the wider issues much more, but I hope that noble Lords can see some of the context.
As I have already asked, if all the people who have arrived irregularly since 7 March are to be removed, where will they be removed to? Where are they staying now, and how much is it costing? Can the Minister confirm the House of Commons Library figure that, as of June 2022, there were 38,900 people waiting for removal? That number is before we even get to the figures on illegal boats; we cannot even deport or remove people whose asylum claims were presumably refused years ago. What has happened to them and where are they? Do the Government know? What is the actual figure if that figure is wrong? Where are they being returned to? Are we ignoring them, or are they being returned? Do we have returns agreements for them?
Can the Minister comment on the interesting dilemma of who will be returned first: the people who have come irregularly since 7 March or the people whose asylum claims were refused and are subject to deportation before this legislation? Presumably, some of those people have been waiting for detention for a considerable period of time.
Can the Minister say, in practical terms, how he expects the returns agreements to cope? I reassure him, again, that I am citing the Government’s 25 May document. How will the Government cope with the returns agreements, given that the number of enforced returns in 2022 was 46% lower than in 2019? Significantly, of those enforced returns, many were EU nationals or foreign national prisoners. Can the Minister also confirm the government figures that say that the number of case workers dealing with asylum claims fell between January and May 2023? As I have said, at the heart of my amendment are the huge numbers waiting to be returned already.
The Government are to detain all people arriving irregularly and then have agreements to return them, which are supposedly in place. Given the contentious figures we have seen in the media over the weekend, what is the Government’s planning figure for the numbers that they expect to detain? The Prime Minister can announce, in Dover, that there are two more barges coming, even though he has no idea where they are or what size they are. While I hope that the Minister can prove me wrong, why can the Prime Minister announce that without the Minister giving us the full detail, as we debate the Bill, as to where people will now be detained? More importantly, given that detainment is the first stage, where will they then be returned to? What is the Government’s estimate of the total cost of those detain and return figures? Is the figure of up to £6 billion over the next two years wrong or not?
According to the briefing that was helpfully published for us by the House of Lords Library,
“Researchers at UK in a Changing Europe have argued that ‘the most significant change’ to asylum policy recently occurred when the UK left the EU”—
which we did. It continues:
“This meant the UK was no longer part of the Dublin Regulation, also referred to as Dublin III. This EU legislation sets out which member state handles the examination of an asylum application, often the country where an asylum seeker first arrives. No agreement between the EU and UK on asylum policy was made when the UK left Dublin III”.
The significant sentence from that briefing is that no returns agreements have since been made, although the UK says that it intends to agree bilateral arrangements with EU member states for the return of asylum seekers—unless Albania counts, although it is not a member of the EU. Can the Minister tell us how that is going? Can he list for us what those returns agreements are, and how many returns each of those various EU countries will get?
This morning, the Prime Minister himself made much of the Anglo-French agreement, saying that it was a great step forward that would no doubt help us. He said that progress has been made, and, because we obviously do not want people crossing the channel in that way, arrangements were made between France and the UK. Unfortunately, as the House of Lords briefing points out:
“A further agreement with France, in which the UK agreed to fund enforcement measures, was signed on 10 March 2023. However, this agreement does not enable the UK to return asylum seekers to France”.
Can the Minister say whether there are ongoing negotiations on that, and where have they got to?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, to help the Minister with the questions he has just been asked, can I add a quite straightforward and simple one? Is it the Government’s intention that return and removal agreements will be made with every country in Schedule 1 to the Bill to which they are seeking to remove people?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My question is even more simple: where is the impact assessment? I think the purpose of impact assessments is to inform the legislative decision. We hear that there will be an impact assessment and it will be produced shortly, but it seems unlikely to be produced while this Bill is being considered in this House. I think that is rather insulting, particularly as the Government rest their intellectual case on the deterrent effect. They say that the numbers will go down as word gets about of how people are to be treated, what “inadmissibility” means and how it is to be applied.
I am strongly against that on legal grounds—I think we should honour our international commitments—and humanitarian grounds, but it is impossible just to consider this argument on its merits if we cannot see the assumptions underlying the Government’s judgment of the impact. The questions from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, are all extremely apposite and I look forward to the answers to them, but it seems to me that in relation to the deterrent effect, the impact assessment—wherever it is, whenever we will see it—will have to consider why people leave their home country and seek asylum far away. Why are they coming here? Will they be deterred by talk of us getting more brutal? We are going to get more brutal if we pass this Bill, but we are not going to get half as brutal as the conditions of the countries from which they are fleeing—75% of those seeking asylum in this country are found by the processes to have a well-founded fear of death or persecution back home.
Talk of pull factors is all nonsense: it is all about push factors. They are fleeing from horrors, from famine, from massacre, from murder and from war. It is difficult to see the deterrent factor as likely to be to be large, given the scale of the factors that are bringing about the flow. The impact assessment may prove me wrong. Certainly, the Government should, if they have the courage of their convictions, produce the evidence and the assumptions that underlie these convictions, and they should do it before we finish considering the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the underlying provisions that we should know about is the safe and legal routes that we are told will deal with any number of people? Situations change so fast. I am not sure we had quite started the Bill when Sudan flared up as it did. There is an awful lot we need to know in order to know how the Bill will work.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness; I should have mentioned the point myself. I am concerned that the Government keep saying that the UNHCR runs safe and legal routes and that it is perfectly possible for someone in Iraq, Syria or Afghanistan to register with UNHCR, which will see them right. It is simply not true. UNHCR has again said so, formally and on the record. It does not run a clearing house. It does not run a general scheme open to all. It is able to cope with approximately, it says, 1% of the demand.
It is the case that if you are a persecuted young woman in Iran, there is no safe and legal route by which you can come to this country. If you are fleeing in Sudan from the war that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to, there is no safe and legal route to the United Kingdom. UNHCR does not stand up the Government’s story that it is the fallback, the clearing house, that we can always turn to. It says it cannot do that. Obviously, it cannot do that; it is not resourced to do that. I agree that the impact assessment, in considering the deterrent effect on what the Government call illegal immigration, must address the question of how people from war-torn, famine-struck, civil war countries can achieve a legal route.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow such a distinguished former Permanent Secretary to the Foreign department. To return to my noble friend’s amendment, it may seem a little counterintuitive or surprising for me to welcome a probing amendment about removal and about a duty to negotiate removal agreements, but I do. The reason is that there is actually a greater and stronger link between the principles that we have been discussing and the practice that my noble friend is considering here, because in this neck of the woods, in particular, the two go together.
I say, with respect to the Committee, that it would have been wise for the Government to have thought about a duty to negotiate removal agreements before they proposed to legislate for a duty to remove. The sin is to have duties to remove with nowhere to remove people to, and duties to detain with no ability to remove, because that leads to indefinite detention.
There were all the arguments that we had on the last illegal Bill, and the arguments that we will have again about whether refugees and asylum seekers should be allowed to work after a period of time. People argued about pull factors, and some of us said that there were push factors, not pull factors. But if people’s claims were being considered quickly, including of those who did not qualify for asylum—who were genuinely illegal migrants and never qualified for asylum—some of us would have no problem with the principle or practice of having a short period of arrest and detention for the purposes of facilitating a lawful removal.
My noble friend Lord Coaker has really hit the nail on the head. What is the practice here? If there is no practical agreement to remove people to whichever country they are from, and people are in practice irremovable, that is where the cruelty comes in. That is a cruelty towards people who are detained for lengthy periods, quite possibly at great public expense, in inappropriate accommodation; this could include accompanied or unaccompanied children not being housed or detained appropriately, not being educated, and so on. That is the sin—the terrible maladministration and lack of good practice, which is then translated into this culture war via more draconian legislation for a general election that will no doubt be sloganed, “Stop the boats”. We do not stop the boats, but we do not welcome the vulnerable people either, so we perpetrate this great swindle on the British people. We toxify a debate that needs to be handled much more temperately, and we do not achieve anything very much at all.
The final link between principle and practice in this area is that, in this amendment, we are talking about a duty on the Secretary of State to negotiate these practical removal agreements for those people who do not meet the tests and do not qualify in the end as refugees. In this probing amendment we are talking about that duty and asking whether it does not need to be a duty because the Secretary of State genuinely wants to negotiate. To go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said before the break, whether that is the case or not, who will negotiate with us? We have heard some flummery from the Benches opposite about how international law is not real law—“We have a dualist system and let me not give you a law lecture, but it’s not real law, it’s only international law”. If our word is not our bond, who will negotiate with us?
There is currently a contradiction at the heart of government between those who want to be leaders on the world stage, with all the challenges that have to be met internationally at the moment, and those who want a culture war. My understanding is that the Prime Minister is now saying not only that we are going to be part of the Council of Europe and honour our international commitments but that we are going to be the architects of new ones. London is apparently going to be at the heart of regulating artificial intelligence—this is where it is all going to happen. But why should anyone allow us that moral leadership on the world stage, if we will not honour international law?
I look forward to the answers to my noble friend’s questions about the moment when principle really does need to meet practice.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help us here. Is not it the case that, without removal agreements, the Bill is likely to make the current situation worse in terms of costs to the Exchequer? As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said, if people are not able to work, and they are not allowed the right to remain but cannot be removed, they will have to be looked after by the state. The difficulty that the Minister has is that, without an impact assessment, there are all sorts of organisations that are filling that vacuum. The vacuum was filled at the weekend—and the estimated additional costs of this Bill were £3 billion to £6 billion in additional accommodation needed to detain those people who could not be removed.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hesitated to come in before and I apologise for not participating at Second Reading, but I followed the debate closely. I must declare an interest: I have been instructed before by the Government as a member of the Bar on matters relating to the subject matter of the Bill. But I can speak freely on Amendment 13 because it is not anything on which I advise. I wish to speak in support of it.
The negotiation of removal or readmission agreements is, of course, a matter for the Government and not for Parliament. But there are many examples in treaty negotiations of Governments invoking pressure from their parliaments—or even from their courts—as a reason for not being able to make a concession or for insisting on concessions from the other side. It seems to me that it might end up strengthening the hand of the Government in these negotiations if they are able to say that Parliament is insisting on them.
The most difficult negotiation is, as we have heard, with the European Union. The European Union is not opposed to readmission agreements. On the contrary, it concluded a number of them with many countries, from Turkey to Belarus. Incidentally, the readmission agreements with Belarus and Russia have been suspended, quite rightly, because of the situation that has arisen. A number of us, I think, would have regarded those agreements as problematic from a human rights point of view even before that.
The reason why a readmission agreement with the UK is difficult is that the UK is a country from which European Union member states would have to take people back, rather than send them back. The Government published a draft readmission agreement for negotiation with the EU in the summer of 2020. That text is still available on the government website. If the EU had accepted that treaty, it would have allowed the UK to send people back to EU member states—not only permanent residents and nationals, but also third-country nationals who have transited through an EU member state. The provisions in that draft treaty proposed by the UK were identical to a number of provisions found in readmission agreements concluded by the European Union, including the one with Turkey. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong about this, but I think that negotiations with the EU on the Government’s draft proposal never took off.
It is worth noting that both the UK and the EU—and that includes the EU in its own capacity and EU member states—are subject to quite wide-ranging treaty obligations on both migrant smuggling and human trafficking. These treaties impose various obligations of international co-operation, including, in the case of the migrant smuggling protocol, the obligation to
“cooperate to the fullest extent possible to prevent and suppress the smuggling of migrants by sea”.
Generally speaking, these are obligations of conduct rather than by result. They do not oblige the EU to accept the terms of the treaty proposed by the UK. They do, however, require the EU, EU member states and all parties to those treaties to engage in good faith negotiations with the UK on readmission, particularly where very similar treaties have been concluded in other contexts. It would be a very unattractive position for any party to these treaties to take the view that they are open to readmission agreements only when they are in their interest and not when they are not.
It seems to me that Amendment 13 would bring some of these questions to the surface by requiring the Government to update Parliament on the status of these negotiations and on the reasons why these negotiations might not be progressing. That is outlined in subsection (3) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 13. It would not be a case of government and Parliament speaking with separate voices; on the contrary, it would be a case of Parliament adding its voice and adding pressure for the purposes of achieving an objective that both Parliament and government consider important.
My final point concerns the language of “formal legally binding agreements” in subsection (1). It is broadly right that this should be the optimum arrangement—the formal legally binding agreement—but it is also the case in this sort of practice that states will often conclude agreements that are not binding. The European Union has two such agreements with Guinea and the Gambia. For various reasons, those agreements, in some cases, are more appropriate. My understanding—and the Minister will, again, correct me if I am wrong—is that the arrangement with Albania that was announced a few weeks ago is actually part of a non-binding arrangement that was built on an existing treaty. The treaty itself is the one from 2021, but the further agreement that was announced by the Prime Ministers at their recent meeting is an example of such a non-binding agreement that can, in certain circumstances, be a better way of achieving that same objective. I would agree, however, with the notion that the formal and legally binding agreement is the gold standard in this kind of situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill sets out a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the removal of a person who has arrived in or entered the UK illegally and satisfies the four conditions set out in Clause 2. In the majority of cases, formal returns agreements are not required in order to carry out removals. Most countries co-operate with returns, and these relationships are managed through official-led engagement with immigration counterparts in receiving countries and through consular services based in the UK. Returns agreements can be a useful tool to solidify or improve returns co-operation and are sometimes requested by the receiving country. We carefully consider whether it is beneficial to enter into negotiations to formalise a returns relationship, having regard to the potential requests that the other side would seek to incorporate into an agreement, such as a liberalisation of the UK visa requirements in respect of their nationals.
As of May 2023, the Home Office has 16 returns agreements in place. Recent additions to the list include Albania, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced the start of negotiations on a new returns agreement with Moldova. A number of these agreements are sensitive, and receiving countries might withdraw co-operation if they are publicised, so it would be detrimental to formalise and publish all such agreements. There are also some countries where the existing security and country situation might prevent returns taking place, such as Sudan and Afghanistan. We continue to monitor the situation closely in those countries with a view to resuming enforced returns as soon as is practicable and safe.
I should add that, while returns agreements have a valuable role to play, they are not silver bullets. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has, in terms, accused this Government of ripping up the Dublin convention, but may I just remind the noble Lord that the UK was a net recipient of migrants under the Dublin scheme? As my honourable friend Tim Loughton said in the other place:
“In the last year that we were covered by the Dublin convention, before the pandemic struck, we applied to the EU for 8,500 returns under that returns agreement and only 105 were granted—that is 1.2%—so what he says is complete nonsense. It did not work when we were in the EU, and he is now expecting to magic up some agreement that the EU will not give us anyway”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23, col. 792.]
Mr Loughton was, at that time, intervening on the speech of Stephen Kinnock in the other place.
In addition to the returns agreements, we also have our world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda. I remind the House that there is no limit on the numbers that can be relocated to Rwanda under the partnership agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, cited various figures, including in relation to the current asylum backlog. I remind noble Lords that, under Clause 4, any asylum claims made by persons who meet the conditions in Clause 2 are to be declared inadmissible. It is, of course, important to deal with the current backlog. The Prime Minister announced today that the initial decision legacy backlog is down by over 17,000, but there is no correlation between these legacy cases and the cohort to be removed under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked about the impact assessment for the Bill. We have already published the equality impact assessment, and we will publish an economic impact assessment in due course. Noble Lords will have to wait patiently for the economic impact assessment. In the interim, I do not propose to comment on impact assessments issued by NGOs or leaks in the media.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have a very important question. The noble Lord and government Ministers keep saying from the Dispatch Box, here and in the other place, that certain things will happen if the Bill goes through. Has the Home Office actually completed an impact assessment which clarifies exactly what the Minister is saying?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Certain things will happen when the Bill goes through; the system described within it will take effect. I assure the noble Lord that this is something that the Home Office expects to happen—that is, that returns will be effected in accordance with the duty imposed on the Secretary of State.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
If the impact assessment is to be provided in a timely way—or if not—will the Minister ensure that it contains an estimate or assessment of the number of people who would have been granted asylum but will not be because they are excluded as a result of the blanket effects of the Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is not for me to dictate what is in the impact assessment. The department will provide the impact assessment in due course—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will come back to the noble Lords in due course, but I need to make progress.
The broken asylum system costs the UK £3 billion a year, and that is rising. There seems to be an impression that, without the Bill, those costs will not continue to rise at an alarming rate year on year. Doing nothing is not an option.
In conclusion, I agree with the noble Lord that returns agreements have a place, and we will seek to negotiate these where appropriate. By their nature, any such negotiations involve two parties. The UK cannot compel other countries to enter into such agreements; they are a two-way process. Moreover, it will not enhance such negotiations to require their status to be set out in a three-monthly report to be laid before Parliament.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I ask the noble Lord to bear with me for a moment.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I remind the House that it is not required for a Minister to give way. However, your Lordships may like to recall that we are in Committee, and the normal procedure of Committee is that someone can intervene again. However, I think it is always helpful for the House to allow the Minister to complete his remarks—and then, doubtless, the noble Lord may wish to comment on them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, this will not advance our negotiating position—quite the contrary. This amendment could well make such negotiations harder. It does not help the UK’s negotiating position to be setting out its negotiating strategy in public. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
May we return to something that the noble Lord said a few moments ago? He said that it is not for him to dictate what appears in an impact assessment. If it is not for a Minister—either this Minister or one of his noble or honourable friends, either in this place or another—to dictate what appears in an impact assessment, for whom is it to determine what appears in one?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord and I appear to be talking somewhat at cross purposes. My answer was that it was not for me as the Minister to inform the contents and the conclusions of the impact assessment; it is of course for the Minister to ask broadly for the topics that the impact assessment should cover.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Does the Minister understand that, if he answered the questions that your Lordships are asking, he would not experience this number of interventions? It is a rudeness not to answer our questions.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness will have heard the comments from the Lord Privy Seal.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
To take the noble Lord back to the question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has the economic impact assessment been completed or not? If it has been, why do we not have it? If it has not been, surely it should have been informing the Bill itself.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can do no better than say that the impact assessment will be published in due course.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
How do the Government justify not having an impact statement until presumably the whole of this House has completed its dealing with the Bill? It seems to me outrageous. How can the Government justify that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, I am afraid the impact assessment will be published in due course.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend must accept that the Bill can be expedited and the House can be satisfied if a proper impact assessment is produced in time for Report. The whole purpose of Committee is to probe, as we are doing this afternoon and so on. However, when it comes to Report, when the House has to make significant decisions on the most sensitive piece of legislation that has been before Parliament for a very long time, it is crucial that we have all the facts at our disposal.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Of course, I hear what my noble friend says.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Regardless of when the impact assessment will be published, the Minister keeps restating issues as fact. I therefore ask: have those facts been determined by a completed impact assessment that he and his colleagues have seen and signed off?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I cannot do more than say that the impact assessment will be published in due course.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister really should say whether an impact assessment was produced. I apologise for reverting; I was the one who raised the question of the impact statement. I am not terribly happy with the message that the Minister is conveying. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, put her finger on it. Presumably the Government did their own assessment of the impact of the policy that is reflected in the Bill; therefore, an impact assessment of some kind existed. If it did not exist, I do not know how the Government could have decided to adopt this policy. If it does exist—I am sure it does, in some form or another—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, are surely right. We are being asked to take a decision without knowing its effect. We do not know—other than breaking humanitarian law and international commitments—what practical effect the Bill will have. Therefore, before we finish Committee, the Minister should change his line and let us have it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. The point about the Bill is that we know that deterrence has effect, and we have seen that, as the Prime Minister announced this morning, in relation to the effect of our returns agreement with Albania.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his patience. Could I try this another way in relation to the debate on the impact assessment? If I am wrong about this, I want to be set right. This is not a rhetorical question; this is a genuine question about the process and purpose behind these impact assessments. I had been thinking that the purpose of these various assessments by the department was that they become part of the case for the legislation in Parliament. The department does the drafting and the policy and that is the Bill, that will be law; and to back it up, it has its case based on the evidence that it has marshalled.
If I am right about that, that gives rise to the concerns about why we are going further and further down the legislative process before the court of Parliament—if you like—without the evidence base. Of course, that is particularly important in the case of so-called illegal migration, because public expense is such a concern in the public debate about immigration: cost-benefit economic analysis is always a keen part of the debate in the Committee, in Parliament and in the public square.
Finally, on this same point about process and the impact assessment, the Minister said earlier that it was not for him to dictate what would be in the impact assessment, and I do understand that, because no Minister would want to dictate that. However, if I am right, and the purpose of these assessments is that they are part of the Government’s case for the legislation, surely it is for the Minister and his colleagues at ministerial level to sign off on the quality of this work and the soundness of the proposition in it. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. It is not a judicial process; it is an executive process of marshalling the economic case for this legislation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
There is no statutory requirement to have a public impact assessment in relation to items of public legislation. Indeed, as I understand it, many pieces of legislation do not have one at all; so it is not a statutory requirement, as perhaps the noble Baroness seemed to suggest. Clearly, there is work done in the department behind the development of policy, and an economic impact assessment is certainly not an essential part of that process; nor is it a fundamental part. It is a part and, as I say, it will be published in due course.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, surely this is not just about statutory requirements. Will the noble Lord contrast this with the way in which the right honourable Theresa May presented to Parliament the modern slavery legislation? That was dealt with by pre-legislative scrutiny, by consensus being developed across the political parties in another place, and by getting bicameral as well as bipartisan agreement around a similarly controversial question, much of which informs this particular Bill. Will the noble Lord accept, therefore, that the expressions that have been voiced around the Chamber are as much about the integrity of Parliament and the way we do things as they are about the substance of the Bill?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, I always listen intently to the noble Lord’s measured contributions. Of course, the key distinction between this Bill and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is that this Bill is to address an emergency presently affecting our country and to stop people drowning in the channel. That is why this measure has to be taken through Parliament at pace—in order to put in place a deterrent effect that stops those journeys being made.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has made reference to the reduction in the number of Albanians using the cross-channel route, which is the object of this Bill. I think many of us strongly welcome and support what the Government did to negotiate with Albania and return people who are economic migrants. But would he not recognise that all that is happening under powers in the Nationality and Borders Act? It is nothing to do with the legislation before us. It is not relevant, frankly, to the case of Albania. So, it would be best not to pray in aid the welcome reduction in the number of Albanians crossing the channel, which is being dealt with under existing legislation. Is that not true?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Hesitate as I do to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, relates to returns agreements. We have negotiated with Albania an effective arrangement allowing for the return of Albanians. It is more to do with that, I suggest, than with the 2022 Bill, although of course it all plays its part. It is an example which demonstrates that deterrents work.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee is entitled to ask what the Minister means by “in due course”. Specifically, will the impact assessment be available before Report? My thinking is that the House should not allow the Bill to begin Report without the impact assessment being available.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says. I will take back his comments, and those of others, and we can reflect on them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can the Minister write to him, and put a copy of the letter in the Library, on whether the impact assessment will be published before Report,?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, I will take the mood of the Committee back to the department.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, as an economist I am aware of the fallibility of economic forecasts. The Governor of the Bank of England had to admit recently that the forecast for the inflationary effect was 30 years out of date. We should be wary of placing too much reliance on economic forecasts as part of any impact assessment.
Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has just said, there must be some understanding of what the likely effect will be, based on international evidence and so forth. The Government have not gone into this totally blind. Nevertheless, we are talking here about a novel situation. We just do not know what is likely to happen as a result of a deterrent effect. We do not know what effect the Nationalities and Borders Act has had, and we do not know what effect this will have. We should therefore be a little guarded about the value and importance of an impact assessment in this case.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for that intervention; he makes a very good point, with which I agree. Economic assessments are guarded with caveats, like any other economic forecast.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very happy to agree or disagree with whatever impact assessment arises, when I see it. How can we possibly take the advice just offered and make an opinion about something that might or might not be accurate until we see what to base our judgment on? It is an extraordinary, circular argument, from someone who wants to give a fig leaf to the Minister.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but in any Bill the economic impact assessment—where one is provided, which is not in every case—is only ever one piece of the documentation that is available in support of a Bill. The impact assessment will be published in due course; I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any more information. I hear what he says, and the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and will take their comments back to the department.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, on 24 May, the Minister said the same thing: that he would take our concerns back to the department. There have been nearly two weeks for the department to reflect and act on our concerns about the economic impact assessment and the child rights impact assessment—which some of us consider to be even more important.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I have nothing to add other than that it will be published in due course.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sure that the Minister did not mean to ignore the questions that I put to him. Perhaps he has not had the chance to read today’s Times. Can he write to me on the veracity of the reports in today’s Times and, while doing so, respond to the article in the Telegraph saying that the Home Office has failed to identify sufficient detention spaces as required by the Treasury?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord well knows, it is not government policy to comment on leaks. That is a fairly long-standing convention. I do not propose to do so now.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Government and the Minister are in a mess on this, particularly given the fact that the Minister cannot reassure us about the impact assessment.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, put it at the beginning but I was going to finish by saying that the reason I put forward Amendment 13 was to try to get some of the detail that is necessary for parliamentarians to actually make decisions about whether or not a law is fit for purpose. The Minister is now in real trouble through the rest of the Committee, not just on this amendment, which I particularly posed around returns. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned that a number of questions were asked, including by me, and that the Minister failed to answer virtually any of them—apart from those on the Dublin III agreement, which, if I might say, was something that would have been in the impact assessment. The Minister said that what I said was “complete nonsense”. I would not have used that term about another noble Lord, but he called what I said complete nonsense. Having said that, the impact assessment is crucial.
Nobody has a clue what “in due course” means. My noble friend Lady Lister made the point that I have got written down: on 24 May, the Minister committed himself to taking back the concerns that there was not an impact assessment. Can the Minister confirm that he has taken those back already? If so, why is he saying that he is going to take back the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others mentioned today? His answer should have been that he had already taken the concerns back and they are being discussed in the department.
Shall I tell the Minister why this is so serious? I know from my own ministerial times—as I am sure that others here who have served either as civil servants or Ministers will know—that there will be planning assumptions in the department. They have not just made it up—a few people from here, a few people from there; there will be planning assumptions. That is where the figure in the Times which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to has come from. Whether or not it is a leak, there is a figure of between £3 billion and £6 billion as to the cost over the next two years of the Government’s policy. There will be assumptions about the numbers of detainees and assumptions about the numbers who are going to be removed. All of those assumptions are available and in the Home Office. The Minister will have had some discussions about that. Of course he should be involved in the impact assessment. He will take the advice of civil servants but, in the end, with the Home Secretary, he will have to sign it off. The impact assessment will be signed off by Ministers. He will not write it but he will sign it off, or other Ministers will.
The Minister has available to him facts and figures that this Committee does not have. How on earth can you properly legislate on that basis? How can we say that the Minister, as he will have on some things, has a good point? I will say something and then he will say, “Lord Coaker hasn’t thought about that; if he had seen these facts, he would know that”. I would have to concede, because there are facts.
We are not yet in a Trumpian world of competing facts; we have facts. That is what every single noble Lord in this Chamber has asked the Government for. In order to make proper decisions, whether about returns agreements as in my Amendment 13 or other decisions, it is a convention that those facts are made available. At the very least, they should be made available before Report—they should be made available now. You can have an impact assessment and an economic impact assessment, or you can put the two together.
In effect, we are whistling in the dark. We have no idea what half of this means. I asked the Minister how many people are currently waiting to be deported, both pre 7 March and post 7 March, and how many the Government assume will be able to be returned. Where are the returns agreements? It is perfectly reasonable to ask the Minister responsible for the operation of the Illegal Migration Bill to say practically how it is going to work.
I said that the debate about principle will have to come but I am also interested in the unworkability of what has been said. The Minister took me on about Dublin III. What about the rest of it? Where are all the other facts and figures? This Committee has no idea. The Minister will have them; I read them out from his own statistics. Why did he not just repeat the public facts available about the Bill?
I know that we need to move on. I understand that and it is fair comment that I am now going on too long. But it is of such importance that we have the facts normally made available as a convention, a courtesy and a good way of doing legislation. They should be put before parliamentarians as they make decisions, debate, discuss and argue. Opinions will clash. People will think that some of what I say is rubbish and complete nonsense, but that is what happens in a debating chamber. It cannot happen if one hand is tied behind our backs. The Minister needs to publish that impact assessment as soon as possible. To do that “in due course” is not good enough. He needs to go back to the Home Secretary and tell her we need it to be published because we need to see the facts as we discuss the legislation. That is what every one of us thinks is important, and it should happen as soon as possible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meacher
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 15. Even without an impact assessment, we know that Clause 2 and subsequent clauses will ensure that anyone coming to this country not through one of the incredibly limited safe routes faces likely detention and removal. Irrespective of the persecution, torture or whatever they have been through in the past, this is what they will face coming to this country under the Bill.
We formulated these two amendments originally in relation to unaccompanied children, but it seemed wrong on reflection that these protections should be limited in that way. Therefore, Amendment 14 now aims to ensure that the Secretary of State will not have the duty to arrange for the removal at the age of 18 of any person who arrived in the UK as a child. Amendment 15 would ensure that if, under Clause 3(2), the Secretary of State made arrangements for the removal of a person from the UK and the person came to the UK as a child, then such removal could take place only if it was in the best interests of the child. Amendment 17 would achieve the same protection for unaccompanied children, and I very much support it.
These amendments and others are vital in addressing the profound concerns of the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium. It points out that the Bill, and in particular Clause 3, are an affront to the refugee convention, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989. If unamended, the measures in the Bill will have severe consequences for the welfare and physical and mental health of extremely vulnerable children who have fled conflict, persecution and other unimaginable harms. We do not have an impact assessment, the detail or the numbers, but the Bill will affect every child arriving in the UK who has not come by one of the very limited safe routes. These apply to Ukraine and Hong Kong—to put things simply. If one comes from Afghanistan, Sudan or one of those other very high-risk places, there are simply no safe routes for one to take.
As the Bill stands, trafficked children will be locked out of refugee protection. Instead, they will be detained by the Home Office outside the care system in entirely unsuitable, unacceptable accommodation without proper medical or mental health care, and removed at the age of 18. Those children will include a substantial number who are brought here as modern slaves. They have not chosen to come here. They have not come here voluntarily but have been brought against their will. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments down, and I very much support Amendments 14, 18 and 27 in particular. “The best interests of the child” has become well known across the United Kingdom. It probably started in the United Nations’ rights of the child. It is to be found, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, in the Children Act 1989, and all lawyers who deal with children work with it. It has become a guiding light, even for Governments of all sorts. It really is quite extraordinary that the current Government have gone almost exactly opposite to the rights of the child and, more important than the rights, the best interests of the child.
I have to say that over all the years that I have seen the Conservative Party, with all my family before me as Conservatives, and one a Minister, I cannot believe I have ever seen a situation where children were as disregarded and downgraded as this Government have done in this Bill. I cannot believe it represents what I might call the basic philosophy of a great party that has been in power, this time, since 2010. I am truly sad about it.
I have put down Amendment 16A, which is a probing amendment, as I need to know what the impact of the law is. I believe this came, though not to me, from the Children’s Commissioner for England. The scenario that she had in mind was a mother who was pregnant, who came to this country, the child was born and the mother died. The child was placed in care as a baby—I would be surprised if the Government kept a baby and did not put it to the local authority; at least I would hope so—and the local authority, because there was no family, placed the child for adoption with a British family or a family resident in this country. What happens to that child under this Bill at the age of 18? As far as I understand it, a child adopted by a British family would not automatically have British citizenship or may not have it—I am no expert on immigration—at the age of 18. Is that child, by now a member of a new family in this country, to be removed at 18? That is a legal question to which I do not know the answer, and it is crucial that that answer is given to us before we get to Report.
It is not only the children who are probably adopted at birth. I rather hope the Government are not going to keep young children, because there will be other parents who die and leave a child without a parent in this country, particularly younger children. Are younger children, not 16 or 17 year-olds, going to be kept by the Government in some sort of accommodation? Surely those children would be put into the care of a local authority under the requirements of the Children Act 1989. I would be astonished if they were not taken. If they go into care and they are young, they are very likely to be placed in a foster family. If they are placed in a foster family as a young child, they will grow up going to an English school, like the baby, and living an English life.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 17, spoken to so powerfully by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name; but I support any amendment that serves to take out or restrict the duty/power to remove anyone who arrived as a child—in particular, that tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs.
As the Children’s Commissioner has made clear:
“Children must be able to claim asylum”.
Indeed, it is only last year that the then Minister assured us that
“unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 311.]
and current Home Office guidance sets out in bold:
“Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not suitable for the inadmissibility processes”.
So will the Minister explain why they are considered suitable now, and on what evidence this policy volte-face is based?
I put my name to Amendment 17 because it gives the Committee the opportunity to consider whether the Bill is compatible with the duty under the UNCRC, enshrined in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration—a crucial issue, which we have touched on already.
Recently, the Government told the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that they remained “fully committed” to upholding the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is, of course, welcome, yet the civil society alternative report on the UK’s implementation of the UN convention observed:
“The best interests principle is often applied tokenistically for children in the immigration system, with no evidence of a structured assessment or explanation, and decisions and policies are routinely made that are contrary to children’s well-being”.
The UN Committee, which reported on Friday, noted “with concern” that the best interests principle “is not systematically applied” in all matters affecting children and states that it should be. As the committee goes on observe, this Bill is no exception.
The UN committee’s general comment number 14 on the best interests principle makes it clear that its operation requires certain procedural guarantees and that
“the justification of a decision must show that the right has been explicitly taken into account. In this regard, States parties shall explain how the right has been respected in the decision, that is, what has been considered to be in the child’s best interests; what criteria it is based on; and how the child’s interests have been weighed against other considerations, be they broad issues of policy or individual cases”.
It spells out that
“primary consideration means that the child’s interests have high priority and not just one of several considerations. Therefore a larger weight must be attached to what serves the child best”.
This requires a child rights impact assessment that needs to be built in
“as early as possible in the development of policy”.
Yet here we are, on the second day in Committee, the Bill having already passed through the Commons and Second Reading in the Lords without any such impact assessment and, as I noted earlier, despite the Minister promising the Committee to take the matter back to his department nearly a fortnight ago. Where is it?
If it had been built in as early as possible in the development of the policy, it should have been available at the same time as the Bill was published, with an assessment of the impact on both accompanied and unaccompanied children. Instead, we have what can be described only as a superficial treatment of the best interests question in the equality impact assessment—which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading in the Lords. The bland statement that the best interests duty is
“not the only factor that must be considered and other relevant factors must be taken into account”
is simply not good enough. There is also no provision to assess the best interests of individual children, unaccompanied or accompanied, before the decision is made to deem them inadmissible.
That the duty to remove does not apply until the age of 18 for unaccompanied children, and that the government amendment sets out the main situations in which the power to remove before that age might be used, represent no more than partial and inadequate mitigation. The Children’s Commissioner has made it clear that the government amendment
“does not go far enough. The power could still be used to remove children in ‘other circumstances’ which are not detailed”.
Could the Minister therefore explain what the “other circumstances” are in which the power to remove unaccompanied children might be used? How will it be determined if it is safe for a child to be returned to their home country?
In the supplementary ECHR memorandum, the Government acknowledge that the clause, as amended,
“is likely to engage Article 8 where an unaccompanied child … is not removed for potentially some years … in which time”
they
“may have built some considerable family and/or private life”
in the UK. The fact that the majority may be aged 16 or 17 does not alter that.
I found the justification for such interference with Article 8 quite breathtaking: namely, that it was
“in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society”.
Could the Minister explain how exactly treating children in this appalling way is necessary in a democratic society? This also applies to the duty to remove children once they reach the age of 18. ILPA reminds us that the Court of Appeal has observed:
“It is not easy to see that risks of the relevant kind to a person who is a child would continue until the eve of that [18th] birthday, and cease at once the next day”.
A number of health and social work organisations have drawn attention to the likely impact on a child’s mental, and possibly physical, health of knowing they will be removed once they reach 18. It will undermine their education and any chances of integration. Try and put yourself in the shoes of a child or young person who knows that they are here only on sufferance and that the clock is running down towards their removal. It is no way to live a life at any age, but particularly not your childhood.
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium notes that, in the past, unaccompanied children were typically
“granted temporary leave to remain until they turned 17½”.
As a consequence, the fear of removal meant that many children disappeared underground
“at extreme risk of exploitation and … danger of self-harm”
and even suicide.
This fear is echoed by the Children’s Commissioner, who has warned that the duty to remove at 18
“will make it incredibly hard to safeguard unaccompanied children, as they will likely go missing rather than be deported, leaving them very vulnerable to exploitation”.
These considerations, especially the dangers of exploitation in this country, based on experience, must surely trump the hypothetical fears used to justify the duty by Ministers—that, otherwise, children will be exploited by smugglers and traffickers. Again, this point was made by the Children’s Commissioner in her opposition to the duty to remove at 18.
According to the Refugee Council’s impact assessment, we could be talking about 13,000 to nearly 15,000 unaccompanied children per year. Let us not forget that, as the Children’s Society reminds us, these are children who are scared and traumatised, and who need security, support and the opportunity to experience their childhoods.
The Immigration Minister tried to reassure MPs that
“all the Ministers involved in the Bill’s preparation have thought very carefully about how we can protect children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 837.]
But I am afraid he has failed to reassure the Children’s Commissioner, international human rights organisations, medical and social work organisations and children’s and refugee organisations. He has also failed to reassure the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has called on the Government to “urgently amend” the Bill to abandon all provisions
“that would have the effect of violating children’s rights under the Convention and the 1951 Refugee Convention”.
Thus, if the Government genuinely want to protect children, they will at the very least accept some of the amendments proposed today and subsequently. But really, they should remove children entirely from the scope of the Bill, as called for by UNICEF.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is a challenge for a mere male to follow the three previous speakers, but my name is on Amendment 22, so I must attempt it. Amendment 22 would prevent unaccompanied children being automatically deemed inadmissible if they came by an irregular route.
Overall, 86% of the unaccompanied children currently going through the asylum process are given permission to stay, including nearly 100%—over 99%—from Afghanistan, over 99% from Eritrea and over 96% from Sudan. But only 6% of these children granted protection and found to have a valid case for asylum here came through the official government schemes. They had to come by an irregular route because there was no other way for them. Putting these two facts together, the Bill asks us to rule out the possibility of even considering the vast majority of unaccompanied children’s cases. That seems not to be in keeping with British tradition, and it is certainly not in keeping with Articles 3 and 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.
Therefore, although I support all the amendments in this group, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to which I added my name.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke movingly about her connections with the Conservative Party. Along with my good and noble friend Lord Tugendhat, I was privileged to enter the other place on 18 June 1970, almost 53 years ago, along with her brother Michael Havers, who of course became a distinguished Lord Chancellor and, tragically, died very young. But, when she made those references, I thought of him and us, and I thought that our motivation could be summed up in that well-known term “one-nation Conservative”. I am extremely proud of what my party has done over the centuries—it has a long history—and I am troubled about some of the Bill’s implications.
I apologise for not being able to take part at Second Reading, because of my wife’s illness. This is my first full day back, as it were, although I will be off again soon. I thought of those great figures of the past: my parliamentary hero, William Wilberforce, as well as Shaftesbury and others. They could not have signed up to what is before us today.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I hope my noble friend is listening, because I hope he will realise that he too is an inheritor of a great Conservative tradition; we must not be a Government who turn our back on that. Of course, the problem that the Bill is seeking to deal with is real, but it can be dealt with using a greater degree of sensitivity, generosity and, I dare say, Christianity. I urge him to take on board the points that have been made this afternoon, particularly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I will return to the amendments, particularly Amendment 22. I think that the Committee will permit me to refer briefly to the impact assessment argument, because it has a particular relevance to Amendment 22. The charity Safe Passage, some time after the Bill was first published, sent a freedom of information request to the Home Office to ask about the number of unaccompanied children who would be affected by the Bill—that is to say, those arriving in the UK through irregular means, including via small boats. The response stated that
“the Home Office does not hold the information you have requested. Whilst our reporting centres can ascertain the age of someone at the point of an event, we cannot establish from our electronic datasets who is accompanied or unaccompanied”.
That means the Government have no idea of the number of unaccompanied children that will be impacted by the provisions of the Bill.
I do not think that I need to say any more—because the argument about the impact assessment has been well aired already—except for one further thought. If the Government have no idea what the effect of the Bill will be, or any particular part of the Bill, I do not understand why they are putting it forward. That point has already been made, but it still puzzles me.
The point of my amendment is to exempt from inadmissibility claims for unaccompanied children, as has already been referred to in some of the other amendments. Under Clause 4(2), those claims will not be considered; they will have no right of appeal; and there will be no possibility of considering such a claim. Although the argument has already been put forward in some of the other amendments, it is a fundamental point, because the children from the countries with very high grant rates for refugee status are forced to make dangerous journeys because there are very limited options for safe routes to the UK. Many of the children come from those countries, and, of those children who have had their cases determined, the vast majority were permitted to stay and rebuild their lives in the UK under the present legislation. That means that the equivalent of those children who are now coming would not be allowed to stay, regardless of the merits of their claim under either the 1951 Geneva convention or the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I want to make two or three other points. If a child is to be removed on reaching their 18th birthday, unless they are actually in detention they will quite sensibly say, “I do not want to go back. I am frightened of going back to where I escaped from”. They will disappear—of course they will. We would all do that if we were in their position; we would not hesitate. It seems to me that we are in danger of saying that we are going to lock them up until their 18th birthday before removing them. It is a preposterous policy.
The Government’s history on children has been somewhat mixed. I remember in the 2016 Act I put forward an amendment for unaccompanied children to come here, and it eventually passed both Houses—it went back once or twice—and became part of the Act. The Government then said: “Ah, but it applies only to 480 children”. That was an arbitrary figure, plucked out of the air, for which there was no rationale at all, except that the Government said that local authorities could not provide foster places, which was quickly disproved.
We then got on to the 2017 Act, at the time when the future of the Dublin treaty—or certainly the parts under which asylum-seeking children in one EU country could claim to join their families in another EU country—was in jeopardy. We passed an amendment in this House that the Government should negotiate to retain the provisions of the treaty. That was eventually accepted, having gone through both Houses. In the 2019 Act, the Government simply removed it. Without wishing to go into long periods of history, I was incensed about all these things but particularly incensed about that.
An upshot was that I was invited to a meeting with three government Ministers and seven officials, including one from the Cabinet Office, to engage in a discussion about the rights of children. I found that quite flattering—I thought the odds of 10:1 were quite favourable to me, given who was on the other side. I was given assurances. One of the Commons Ministers said: “Don’t you trust me?” I looked him in the eye and I lied: “Yes, I trust you, but I don’t trust the Government”—so it was half true—“And anyway, who is to say that you will be in your job in few weeks’ time?” He was not; he was moved on, and I am not sure whether he is in the Government now or not. But I was given certain assurances that were not adhered to, and the number of unaccompanied children who came fell rapidly from that point on.
The Government have in the past given assurances about unaccompanied children and they simply have not stuck to them. That is why I believe that this amendment is important. It will protect the rights of some of the most vulnerable young people fleeing from appalling horrors such as war, enforced conscription into armies, threats of torture and parents being killed. These are terrible things, and we are saying to them that it they get to this country other than by a prescribed route, of which there are hardly any, we will not consider their claim. That is appalling.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group because they are at the heart of whether or not we are acting in conformity with our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which I believe we are not. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has most helpfully brought to our attention the view of the committee set up to watch over the application by all 192 members of the UN to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Its view is negative.
I am well aware that the United Nations does not have any enforcement powers in this matter—sadly, perhaps—but that does not mean that the British Government, which is usually a member of the UN in good standing and good faith, can simply ignore the views of the committee that was set up to watch over this legislation. To do so will have quite serious consequences in a much wider field, because there are plenty of members of the United Nations who shelter behind the lack of enforceability of the UN, whether it is in the Security Council or elsewhere, to do things that we, quite rightly, condemn outright, whether in Ukraine, the Taiwan Strait or wherever. The cost to this country of simply riding roughshod over our obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is therefore quite serious.
The Minister will no doubt remind us that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not incorporated into our domestic law. That is correct, but it was ratified by this country. How do we know that it was ratified, and how do we know that it covers all the provisions which this legislation is at variance with? Because we made two or three rather small, explicit reservations from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, none of which is relevant to the present matters we are debating—they relate to enrolment in the Armed Forces, education and so on. We accepted all the rest, and we ratified it and told the United Nations that we were going to apply all the rest. Now, we are going back on that.
I hope the Minister will not simply tell us that his opinion and that of the Home Office is that we are not infringing any of these obligations. I do not honestly think that that cuts any ice at all. I would be delighted if he would take, one by one, the articles cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and explain why he has a different interpretation of those provisions. I say that more in hope than expectation, because the Minister does not seem to like answering specific questions of that sort. However, I hope on this occasion he will overcome his reluctance to do that and will address these problems. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is a serious matter. It is bringing better conditions for children worldwide. It is being used as an instrument to strike down all sorts of discrimination, and here we are building up new sorts.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. I, and we on these Benches, agree with pretty much everything that has been said, and with the specific amendments, including the first, introduced very succinctly by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
I shall go back almost to the beginning of the debate. I do not come from a Conservative family—rather far from it, in fact; they were good News Chronicle-reading Liberals from Manchester—but they would have agreed with everything that the noble and learned Baroness said. I wonder whether, like me, she finds it particularly offensive that when the issue of the best interests of the child are raised, what the Government so often say is, “Of course we observe the best interests of the child. Of course we always take the best interests into account”, even to the extent, I may say, of sometimes saying that in immigration law best interests are paramount, which sadly they are not—not quite.
Amendment 18, also about unaccompanied children, would address the position—this seems to be a bit of a minnow compared with some of the points that have been made—when the Secretary of State has not been able to make arrangements with her, as I am bound to say, or his self-imposed duty to remove someone within six months, or, in the case of a child who arrives unaccompanied, within six months after the child has ceased to be unaccompanied. The Government must face up to what should happen if the Secretary of State sets herself a duty and then does not comply with it. This amendment would provide for regulations to except these cohorts. Though Parliament obviously could not amend the regulations, at least it would provide for the position.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Meacher, my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I begin by referring to a meeting that my noble friend Lord Singh and I held with Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, quite recently. She had personally seen children coming off the boats. The Refugee Council found that, of the 45,000 people who made the journey in 2022, some 8,700 were children—one in five of the overall number. In response to the questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, perhaps the Minister could confirm the numbers.
Dame Rachel has also visited the accommodation in which many of these children are placed. I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. When the Children’s Commissioner was consulted, was she consulted about this Bill? How did she respond? How does he respond to her view that the Bill drives a “coach and horses” through the Children Act 1989?
The position of children should certainly concentrate our minds. My noble and learned friend perhaps knows better than anyone in this House, as a former head of the Family Law Division, how important it is that we have proper cognisance of the effects of law on children. I asked Dame Rachel about the origins and stories of some of the children whom she had met, to which my noble and learned friend referred as well. Some had travelled from Sudan, Eritrea, Afghanistan and Iran; some had taken journeys that lasted a whole year; some had been left as orphans; and some had been traumatised by war. Many told horrific stories. For instance, she described the story of an Iranian boy who watched his parents being killed and who made the long and arduous journey here to safety. She also referred to a Down’s syndrome child left on their own. She said that decisions about their treatment and future were being taken by inappropriately low-ranking officials who had “no understanding of safeguarding”. Will the Minister urgently look into this question about whether safeguarding criteria are different from the safeguarding used in children’s homes? Are the provisions in the Bill compliant with the duties contained in the education Acts, and are they Gillick compliant? Does the Minister recognise the Children’s Commissioner’s description of the Bill as a “traffickers’ charter”?
No child should be assumed to be an adult—a point made very well a moment ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is no cliff edge. There seems to be an assumption woven into the web and weave of this Bill that there is a magic moment when you cease to be a child and become an adult. The position of children should certainly be put into the impact assessment, which we all wait to see with great anticipation. But it is not simply an impact assessment that has been missing from the legislative scrutiny to which I referred earlier. Only one Select Committee—the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member—has had the chance to scrutinise this Bill, and it has had to do so at a crazy pace, with many of our meetings clashing with the Bill’s proceedings. All being well, it will reach its final iteration tomorrow—not, I am glad to say, “in due course”. This is simply no way to make legislation. When we legislate in haste, we end up repenting at leisure.
At Second Reading, I referred to my misgivings about a number of aspects of the Bill, and among these was the treatment of children: the subject of these amendments. They are affected by every aspect of the Bill, which clearly infringes the rights of children set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, referred to by my noble friend Lord Hannay.
The Home Office says, as its justification for doing this, that it is protecting the best interests of children by seeking to deter them and the adults accompanying them from embarking on these journeys in the first place. This is a straw man argument. It relies on the assumption that the child or adult knew in advance how dangerous the journey would be and assumes that, in any event, the journey would be less dangerous than, say, staying in Sudan, where millions are now displaced; or think of the plight of women in Iran; or think of those in Nigeria who are facing execution because of their beliefs or orientation, or facing genocidal attacks from Boko Haram. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child does not revolve around such calculations.
The desire for deterrence cannot negate or supplant the duty of the UK and this Government to protect all children—every child, whatever their origins—within our jurisdiction. How a country treats its children is a mark of whether that country deserves to describe itself as civilised. How do convention duties square with indefinite detention in whatever place the Secretary of State and her officials deem appropriate and for however long she decides is reasonably necessary before she maybe decides that they should be cast out? How can our convention rights be squared with dispatching children to far-flung places without any true idea of what circumstances will await them there? Who will verify that appropriateness? What will be the criteria? How will such assessments be undertaken?
Too many of the Bill’s provisions relating to children are vague and insufficiently rigorous. The Bill puts on to a statutory footing the provision of accommodation for unaccompanied children, but then fails to define what form such accommodation must consist of. It is as if we have learned nothing from the endless ordeals of children in institutional care. I repeat: why is Home Office accommodation not being made subject to the duties set out in the Children Act 1989? Why are standards or requirements not set out in the Bill itself? I ask this against a backdrop of the Home Office accommodating unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in hostels since 2021. Can the Minister remind us how many of those children have gone missing? How many remain missing? How can the Minister justify the provisions to take a child from local authority accommodation, which is subject to the 1989 Act, and put them into Home Office accommodation, which is not? There are also convention implications from age assessment, not least invasive body searches of children who may have undergone trauma or have been subjected to abuse. Is that Gillick compliant?
We should be clear that these and other provisions mean that the Bill is likely to fall short of compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is also likely to fall short under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and potentially Article 3, which deals with prohibition of torture, inhumane and degrading treatment. Has the Minister also considered Article 22 of the convention and any use of powers to remove a child without first considering their asylum claim? These are crucial questions; if they cannot be resolved here in Committee, they will certainly have to be resolved when we reach Report. I hope the Minister will be able to give the Committee the courtesy of a reply to some of these questions today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with some hesitation after so many speeches—such powerful speeches—from every corner of your Lordships’ House. Having attached my name, however, to two amendments here—Amendment 17, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I will make two points.
First, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that no children who arrive as refugees should be covered by this Bill—indeed, no one should be covered by this Bill—but there is a special case to be made for unaccompanied children who have no adult with them to support them. I invite Members of your Lordships’ House to consider what it would be like if, tomorrow, you were dropped into a foreign country where you do not speak the language—or speak it very imperfectly—you have no resources and you know nobody. While you have decades of life experience, think how difficult it would be to cope. Then imagine what it would be like for an 18 year-old who has known only a life of war, torture and suffering; who thought they had found safety but then were thrown out again.
Secondly, I want to pick up a point that the Minister made in the previous group. He suggested that this Bill was the result of an emergency situation that had suddenly arisen overnight and that this was the excuse for why we did not have an impact assessment. Of course, what we have is a situation that has been developing over a decade or more. We saw people seeking to come across the channel, including—since we are focusing on the many unaccompanied children—people getting underneath the axels into sealed lorries or under trains and, all too often, dying as a result.
I am going to go back to 2016—seven years ago—when I went to a memorial service for one of those people, a 15 year-old called Masud. He was an Afghan who died in the back of a lorry trying to get to the UK to be with his sister. This picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the lack of means for such children to get here legally. Masud should have been able to get here, but he could not. He took his chances and he died. Had he made it, think about where he would be now. Masud, as a 15 year-old, would have had three years—or maybe more—in our education system. He would have been part of our society and contributing. Imagine, however, a Masud who arrives here after this Bill comes into operation—this picks up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, among others. What is Masud going to do just before his 18th birthday? What would any of us do? He is going to have to go into the black economy or the grey economy, which we know our hostile economy has thrust so many people into already: into the illegal car washes or into the illegal marijuana farms, where recently we saw four Vietnamese men, almost certainly victims of modern slavery, die in horrific conditions. Thrust into the gig economy—there has recently been coverage about this—you can rent an identity to be a delivery driver for a night, all under the carpet and all open to abuse and exploitation. Is that what we really want to do to children? Is that what we really want to do to our society: to make a society in which that segment of it grows and grows? As others have said, there is no way that the Government are going to be able to make the removals that they say they are seeking to do.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have the Clause 3 stand part amendment in my name. A lot of the words already spoken have covered some very important parts of this clause. At its heart, of course, the clause does not protect unaccompanied asylum-seeking children; it just defers their removal. Such children will not be able to start to rebuild their lives or focus on their futures because of the threat of removal. I would like to look at a couple of issues—some of which have been touched on already but which are in this clause—that will need explanation from the Government and understanding if I believe them to be the truth.
On 16 June last year, the United Kingdom Government said in their report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child:
“The UK remains fully committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
Further, they added that they are
“committed to ensuring that the best interests of all children are a primary consideration in any decision that affects them”.
So, my first question to the Minister is: do the Government stand by that second statement: that all children are a primary consideration in any decision that affects them?
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate when I came into the Chamber this afternoon, but I heard the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—a powerful beginning to this debate—who spoke about the accommodation provided now for unaccompanied migrant children. I was further motivated to take part having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in which he referred to these same matters.
Since 2021, 4,500 unaccompanied migrant children have been placed in hotels, some as young as 10. Some 200 have gone missing and have not been found. In Britain, when a child goes missing, does it not affect all of us? Is it not the first item on the nine o’clock news and on the front page of every newspaper? However, 200 of these children have gone missing and have not been found again. A recent whistleblower who worked at the Home Office-run hotel in Brighton highlighted the harm that he saw these children facing. He said they were being picked up in the streets, presumably by traffickers, and have not been found again. He said that there were reports that the children had been subjected to emotional abuse and degrading treatment by the staff in the hotels.
Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 gives local authorities—and them alone—statutory protection powers for children. I have been asking for some time by what power the Government put these children in hotels, ignoring Section 20, and what Act of Parliament gives them that power. I have asked a number of Oral Questions and four or five Written Questions. In my latest one I asked His Majesty’s Government
“under which legal provision the Home Office has assumed child protection powers for unaccompanied migrant children”.
The Minister did me the courtesy of replying:
“We expect local authorities to meet their statutory obligations to children from the date they arrive in the UK. The best place for these young people is and will remain within a local authority care placement”.
On that, we are in total agreement. He went on:
“The Home Office is not currently in the position of corporate parent to any unaccompanied child”.
My question is simple. By what Act of Parliament—by what power—do the Government ignore Section 20, place these vulnerable children in hotels and leave them? Two hundred have gone missing. Shame on us.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I want to show the importance of impact assessments. This goes back slightly to the discussion we were having under the last group of amendments, because only one impact assessment for the Bill has been delivered: the equality impact assessment, which talks about age. That is why I support many amendments in this grouping, particularly those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
Once you read the equality impact assessment, it starts giving you a real indication of what the Government’s thinking is for putting children—whether unaccompanied or with families—into this Bill and the impact they believe it is going to have. The first issue, they say, is that it is not direct discrimination against these young people; they call it indirect discrimination. It is quite direct when you are not allowed to stay in the country; it is quite direct when you are going to be detained at the will of the Home Secretary; and it seems quite direct that when you get to the age of 18 you are going to be told to go, never come back and never claim British citizenship. That does not seem like indirect discrimination; it seems very direct.
The equality impact assessment says:
“Any differential impact on these age groups is the result of a person’s conduct and is justified and proportionate in order to achieve the legitimate aims of controlling migration and reducing crime”.
The aim of putting children in is to cut not just migration but crime, which is quite interesting, because on 27 April I asked a Written Question:
“To ask His Majesty's Government, for each police force in each of the last two years, how many crimes were committed by people who arrived by small boat crossings; and for each police force, what percentage of total crimes committed that figure represents”.
Based on the Government’s equality impact assessment, they will have those figures, because it is going to reduce crime. The answer I got from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, was:
“The Home Office collects and publishes information on the number of crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales. This information can be accessed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables. The Home Office does not hold information on perpetrators of crime who have arrived by small boat crossings”.
There is no evidence. I ask the Minister: what evidence do the Government have that including children, either accompanied or unaccompanied, will reduce the crime rate in the UK and by what percentage? It is in their equality impact assessment, so surely the Government have figures for that, otherwise it is just untrue—it is absolutely false.
The great and fascinating thing about this equality impact assessment is that it says: “The Department’s view”—not its evidence or empirical studies, but its “view”—
“is that the Bill should”—
not will but “should”—
“have a deterrent effect which can”—
not will or must, but “can”—
“result in fewer unaccompanied children arriving in the UK by dangerous and unlawful means”.
That is a nice sentence. There is no evidence; there is no study; there are no figures. It is a statement. I did some research, and I am very pleased that the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium has also done some, because the only significant research I can see was done in 2018 by the UNHCR, which was called Destination Anywhere. It was a review on the reasons why unaccompanied children choose the UK. I use the word “choose” inadvertently. The evidence does not support the Government’s assumption—this equality impact assessment is an assumption, not fact, as the words show—that an effective ban on asylum claims for children will stop children travelling regularly to the UK.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Touhig, I was not going to speak to this group of amendments because the arguments have been put so brilliantly. However, I cannot remain silent. I will be brief.
At Second Reading, I said that I could not believe that we were debating such a piece of legislation in a British Parliament. This afternoon, I cannot believe that we are having to argue for basic, decent, fundamental principles for those who are most vulnerable, and particularly for unaccompanied children who, as others have said, have left their country because they had no other choice. The reality of what they were facing drove them from their families, from their homes, and from a place where they felt that they would be safe and where they belonged.
I merely say this to the Government. The Government have two options: to work with those who have tabled these amendments to make a disgusting piece of legislation less so, or to explain to me and other noble Lords why these amendments are unacceptable and how this Bill will not diminish the rights of the most vulnerable children who present themselves on our shores.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, having listened to the debate, I have three questions for the Minister.
First, if I understand the Government’s position correctly, the use of punitive measures against unaccompanied children in this Bill is for a deterrent effect. That is what the Minister said at Second Reading, and it has been a consistent line. For the Government to come to that view, they must have information about the numbers of unaccompanied children that the Bill will affect—otherwise it would have been impossible for them to have determined that this policy will be a deterrent. What is the Home Office’s core estimate of how many unaccompanied children it will require facilities for under this Bill? I know that the Minister has that information in his pack. He must tell the Committee what it is.
My second question is on the Government’s assertion that this measure complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government say that they will act in the interests of the child. At the moment, the UN checklist is the mechanism used to determine the best interests of the child. Will the Minister commit to the Committee that the UN checklist for the determination of the best interests of the child will be used under the terms of this Bill? If the Government’s plan is for it not to be used, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others I fear that they will not be acting in the interest of the child according to the UN convention. This is particularly relevant given that the policy shift is moving away from determining what will be the safety of a child and towards what is considered to be a safe country. That is a very radical change. For example, there are a number of countries on the Government’s safe list that they are today advising against all travel to. Therefore, a British official, or any British charity, may seek to accompany an unaccompanied child back to a country that is considered to be safe while the Foreign Office advises against all travel to that area. How can that be consistent? Last year, I visited the Rwanda reception centre in Kigali. There were no children’s facilities. Can the Minister confirm that there are now?
My third question is this. The Government’s fact sheet on children states that:
“For any unaccompanied child who is removed when under 18, we will ensure that adequate reception arrangements are in place where the child is to be removed to”.
That is not true. What in this Bill provides for the assurance and the duty that there will be reception arrangements in place for any unaccompanied child? There is no mention of that in the Bill. The fact sheet cannot be correct if the Bill does not state that this will be the case. If the Minister can tell me where in the Bill there is a duty to ensure that there are reception facilities and reception arrangements in place for a child to be removed to, I would be very grateful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville added her name to Amendments 14 and 22 but is having to deal with matters in Grand Committee this afternoon, and means no disrespect to this Committee. My noble friend Lord German comprehensively set out the problems with this clause and why it should not stand part of the Bill. Having said that, we also support all the amendments in this group.
On 8 May 1995, Nelson Mandela said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”.
If the Government are serious about implementing the provisions of this Bill in relation to children, what would Mandela have said about our society’s soul? An infant, or even a child yet to be born, brought into the UK by a parent and by what the Home Office calls an irregular route, or an unaccompanied child not thinking of all the consequences—because children, some as young as 10 years-old, do not think about all the consequences of their actions—will never be able to acquire the right to remain in this country and will never be able to work. They will potentially be detained until they are 18 years-old and then deported. Many of them will have had no say in determining the circumstances that they find themselves in or will not have thought about the consequences of their actions. How can the proposals in the Bill be the actions of a society that describes itself as civilised?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hamwee, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lord Dubs. They go to the heart of what many of us are concerned about: what this says about our country and our conformity to various conventions and international treaties that we have signed up to and agreed to be part of. I want to reiterate the importance of that. I will not go on at great length about it because I have spoken at this Dispatch Box, and will again, about there being a huge issue around compatibility with various conventions in this aspect—children—and with some of the workability and practicality of what the Government are setting out to do.
I join the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Scriven, in particular, in saying that it is quite extraordinary to read in the Explanatory Memorandum that the department’s view is that the Bill should have a deterrent effect, which can result in fewer unaccompanied children arriving in the UK by dangerous and unlawful means. Nobody wants anybody to come by dangerous means to a particular country, in this case ours, but it is just an assertion. It is the departmental view. No evidence, as the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Purvis, mentioned, is provided. Of course—without going back to the debate that we had—we have no impact assessment to make any judgments about any of that. I ask the Minister to clarify what that sentence means, what the evidence is for that, and how the Government have come to this view that the Bill should have a deterrent effect. It does all read, to a certain extent, as though the Government are justifying these actions by using unaccompanied children as a deterrent, which I think cannot be the Government’s intention. But that is certainly how it reads, and I think the Minister should put on the record that that is not the case, even though that is certainly what some of the refugee children’s charities have said.
I will ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. How old are the unaccompanied children we are talking about here? I think it was my noble friend Lady Lister who mentioned a child of eight. Some 5,200 unaccompanied children arrived last year. What has happened to them? What is the age range of those children? I think that knowing what has happened in the past would help us make some judgments and assessments about the future.
As my noble friend Lord Touhig mentioned, I think it is appropriate for us to ask what progress the Government have made in finding the 200 children who have been lost to the system. As I have said before, the Home Office is not a corporate parent. My own view is that if it was, it would be prosecuted for losing children. If a human parent lost children, we would be incandescent about it. But the Government have lost 200, and in their equality impact assessment, they warn that they are worried and concerned about children absconding from their care.
Will the Minister take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? Supposing an unaccompanied child is 12, are the Government expecting them to be deported when they are 18, or is there an age limit for that? Have they got to be under 16? It is Committee, so these are the sorts of detailed questions we ask, because otherwise we will not understand how the Government are arriving at their policies. The Government say that if they do not have a right to be here, they will be deported when they reach their 18th birthday. When does that start from? That is why I am asking about age—you can be here for seven years, go to school, and at 18 you will be deported. That was the point the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was making; those are the practicalities of it. Does the Minister expect that if a child aged 17 was in that situation they would wait until they were 18 for the Government to come and find them and deport them? These are detailed questions, which, although we are in the main Chamber, are the point of Committee, to try to understand the practicalities and workability of the situation.
The Government made the amendment to say that there will be exceptions; there will be no requirement on the Secretary of State to deport or to remove—which is the Government’s preferred term—unaccompanied children, but there will be exceptional circumstances, which will be made by regulation. The Government said this would be for reasons of family reunion, and also if a safe country was identified. It would be helpful if the Minister said a little bit more about how that all works in practice, how that information would be found out, and what other circumstances there are, because those are just two examples. They are not the only exceptions; the Government say there are those two, but there may be other exceptional circumstances. What other exceptional circumstances does the Minister think that would mean?
Can the Minister clarify for us the Government’s policy with respect to the use of force with unaccompanied children and how they will be, if you like, kept in care and looked after? What are the Government’s provisions with respect to that?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 3 sets out the power to remove unaccompanied children. This power will be exercised only in very limited circumstances ahead of an individual reaching adulthood. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, outlined, these include: reunion with the child’s parent; where the person is to be removed to a safe country of origin; where the person has not made a protection or human rights claim; or in other circumstances specified in regulations. If an unaccompanied child arrives in the UK illegally from a safe country of origin, they may be returned to their country of origin before they are 18. Of course, any such decision would be taken on a case-by-case basis.
I reassure the Committee that officials and Ministers take these decisions very seriously, with due concern for the sensitivities that have rightly been outlined by the Committee. But we need also to have in mind the profile of those who come on small boats. For context, I remind the Committee that—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Perhaps I can take the noble Lord’s question in just a moment. For context, I remind the Committee that the majority of unaccompanied children who claimed asylum in the UK in 2022 were aged 16 or 17. Where there is a dispute about age, half are found to be adults.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I hope the Minister will stop this characterisation of the effects of this Bill as being just on those who arrive by small boats. He just did it again then. Is it not the case that this affects everybody, regardless of how they get here? It is not just small boats.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, this Bill affects every person who falls within the four categories described in Clause 2, and that is all people who enter by any illegal method. Of course, at the moment, as we know, the majority of such entry is effected by small boats.
For any unaccompanied child who is removed while under 18, we will ensure that adequate reception arrangements are in place where the child is to be removed to. It is not simply a case of putting them on a plane back whence they came.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I would be grateful for the Minister to respond to my point. I read from the factsheet, as he has just done. Where in the Bill is that made that a requirement?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already made clear, the answer is that the department has stated in both Houses that this is our position. The adequacy of reception arrangements is not something you would expect to see in the Bill, and it is consistent with the present regime that is operated in relation to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me. I must make progress. Doubtless, the noble Lord will have an opportunity at the end of my remarks.
Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK. The clause provides the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to remove an unaccompanied child. However, the Government consider it necessary to be alert to the people smugglers changing their tactics to circumvent the Bill. As such, it is appropriate to have a power to extend the circumstances in which it would be possible to remove an unaccompanied child via regulations. This is very much a reserve power. We have to be mindful of changes in the modus operandi of the people smugglers. I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, examples now of how the power might be exercised but I can assure her that such regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore will need to be debated and approved by each House.
Clause 3 also sets out the power to make provisions for other exceptions to the duty to remove via regulations. This provision is important for providing the flexibility to make additional exceptions to the duty should we not want the measures in the Bill to apply to certain categories of persons. I will give one possible example of this: a person who is subject to the duty to make arrangements for removal may also be the subject for extradition proceedings and it would be appropriate for an extradition request, if approved, to take precedence over the duty to remove in Clause 2.
Amendments 14, 15 and 17 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seek either to exclude unaccompanied children altogether from the duty to remove or only permit the removal if it was in their best interests, even when they reach 18. Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, covers similar ground. It seeks to provide for asylum and human rights claims from unaccompanied children to continue to be admissible within the UK.
All these amendments would undermine the intent of the Bill. As I have indicated, if we fill it with exceptions and carve-outs it will not achieve its aims and will serve to put more children at risk as the people smugglers would seek to fill the boats with even more young people, putting further lives at risk and splitting up families. I can confirm that since January 2018 around one-sixth of arrivals on small boats have been children aged 17 and under. We do not want an increase in this proportion or in the absolute numbers. Our asylum system is under increasing pressure from illegal migration, and the Government must take action to undercut the routes that smuggling gangs exploit by facilitating children’s dangerous and illegal entry into the United Kingdom, including via dangerous routes such as small boats.
Stopping the boats is in the best interests of small children who might otherwise make these dangerous and unnecessary journeys. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who raised the issue of a lack of safe and legal routes, I remind the Committee that the safest course for children and adults alike is to seek sanctuary in the first safe country they reach. These amendments would undermine the central premise of the Bill that if one comes to the UK via an illegal route, one will be removed and not permitted to remain in the UK and build a life here. The amendments will increase the incentive for adults to claim to be a child and encourage people smugglers to pivot and focus on bringing over more unaccompanied children via dangerous journeys. The effect would be to put more young lives at risk and split up more families. It is, I say again, in the best interests of children to enact these provisions and stop the boats. It is these amendments that will encourage the people smugglers, not the provisions in the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Purvis and Lord Coaker, pressed me to set out the evidence underlying the purpose of the Bill. It is the Government’s view that if a person arriving illegally in the UK is faced with the prospect of being detained on arrival and swiftly returned to their home country, or removed to a safe third country, they will not pay the people smugglers thousands of pounds to provide them with passage across the channel.
We recognise the particular vulnerabilities in relation to unaccompanied children. That is why the Bill provides that the duty to make arrangements for removal does not apply until they reach adulthood. However, as I have explained, the Bill confers a power to remove unaccompanied children. This is not new but reflects current policy. This will be exercised, as I have said, in very limited circumstances, taking into consideration the best interests of the child. Following amendments brought by the Government at Report in the Commons, this clause now expressly sets out the circumstances in which the power to remove unaccompanied children may be exercised.
Turning to Amendment 16A, I first comment that the noble and learned Baroness set out what is likely to be an exceptional scenario. That said, she has a point in that an unaccompanied child who is subsequently adopted in the UK by a British citizen has an automatic route to British citizenship. They would therefore not be subject to the citizenship bans in Clauses 30 to 36. In this scenario, we agree that it would not be appropriate for the duty to remove to be applied to that child. We can address this by using the regulation-making power in Clause 3(7) to provide for exceptions to the duty to remove. An amendment to the Bill is, therefore, not required. In addition to adopted unaccompanied children, such regulations would also cover any other cohorts to whom the duty would apply but who exceptionally obtain British citizenship following their arrival in the UK. I hope that the noble and learned Baroness and my noble friend Lord Cormack will be reassured by this.
Amendment 18 from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is on one level unnecessary in that the regulation-making power in Clause 3(7) could be used to deliver the desired outcome. However, I come back to the aim of the Bill: namely, promptly to remove from the UK those who meet the conditions in Clause 2. We have brought forward a robust legal scheme that will enable us to do just that and I urge your Lordships not to add caveats, exceptions and exemptions to the Bill such as to make the scheme unworkable.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I should add that I very much value the continued dialogue we are having with the Children’s Commissioner for England. She recently met the Immigration Minister and me, and I am due to meet her again soon to discuss the Bill.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, that point was specifically about the alignment of the Children Act with this legislation. Clauses 17 and 20, which deal with standards of accommodation, were raised by several noble Lords. Is the Minister intending to say something about that before he moves on?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly there are other provisions in relation to the standards of detention in the detained estate in relation to children. In the event that they are not detained, the usual prevailing regulations will apply and I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail in relation to that.
The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee in relation to the regulation-making power in Clause 3(7). We are studying that committee’s report carefully and aim to respond before Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the use of force. We will address that point when we reach Amendment 70 on Wednesday.
In conclusion, Clause 3 adopts an appropriate balance in respect of unaccompanied children and, in those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Committee noted the Minister confirming that there would be no duty on Ministers to ensure that adequate reception arrangements are in place for an unaccompanied minor to be received. That is tragic. Can he also answer my question with regard to the fact that the only place at the moment with which the Government have an MOU is Rwanda? Are there any facilities for children in Rwanda that the Government have agreed-?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, the occasions when a child will be removed will be very exceptional and the two cases that are envisaged are for family reunion, therefore reception facilities will not be required, or if it was a return to a safe country, and that of course would not arise unless it was a Rwandan child. In those circumstances, I do not see the particular purpose of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The other category does apply. If it cannot be to the safe country of origin, it applies to the schedule countries. The only scheme that we have at the moment, if it is not a safe country, would be Rwanda, so it is a simple question: are there any facilities for children in Kigali which the Government have agreed?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said, the power will be exercised very exceptionally. I am happy to go away and look into that point, and I will write to the noble Lord on it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I asked a number of questions around the child rights impact assessment. Please do not say that we will get it in due course, because I quoted from the UN committee’s guidance on impact assessments and it was very clear that it should be shaping the policy process from the word go—so it must exist. Why do we not have it? It is good that the Children’s Commissioner is now being involved in discussions, but she complained that she was not consulted prior to the publication of the Bill. Given the impact on children, surely that is grave discourtesy to the Children’s Commissioner.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
From my experience, the Children’s Commissioner was involved, certainly while the Bill was passing through the other place, but I will look further into that point on timings. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is very important that she is engaged with in full in relation to the development of this legislation in so far as my personal view goes. In relation to the point about the child impact assessment, I am afraid that, however much it will disappoint the noble Baroness, I must revert to the usual answer and say that it will be provided in due course—but I of course take away the sentiment that she has evinced.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In relation to the situation when the child becomes 18, have the Government taken into account the impact on younger children who may have spent many years in this country and are then basically deported?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is quite right that it is a very difficult balance that we have to draw. The difficulty is that we cannot allow there to be a loophole which incentivises people smugglers to put young children into boats and expose them to greater danger. There is clearly a balancing act to be performed. There are powers in the Bill, as the noble and learned Baroness will have seen, in relation to exceptional circumstances. However, the principle is that a minor will be removed at the date of their majority. I should add, in relation to a point that was raised in the speeches, that of course children become adults at 18, and that is recognised in international instruments. I appreciate that children develop at different rates, but that is the legal position, as I am sure the noble and learned Baroness will agree.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Further to the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, can I ask the Minister to look at this? I raised it in my remarks as well. My noble friend Lady Lister raised the case of an eight year-old. There is a problem here. I appreciate the point the Minister made, but there is a very real problem, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned. If you have a child who is 10 or 11, they will be here for eight years and will then be deported at 18. Can the Minister at least go away, have a look at this and discuss with his officials whether there is a way of being consistent with the Bill, as the Minister would have it, but also reflect on that as particular point that causes problems?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that these points have received bags of consideration, not least from me, because they are very difficult. Of course, the length of time a child is present is a material factor. I am glad to say, as I said in my earlier remarks, that the vast bulk of children who are found in the small boats are not in the eight to 10 age bracket but are more likely to be 16 or 17. I can hear the noble Lord saying sotto voce that I have not answered the question. The answer is yes, of course I will carry on thinking about it, but it is a difficult question. In the Government’s view, we have come to the only logical solution that does not provide a very large hole in the scheme of the Act.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister made reference to the balance that the Government believe there is in the Bill around unaccompanied minors and encouraging smugglers. There have been a lot of speeches in this group about the rights of the child. Article 2 says they apply to every child; Article 4 says that Governments must do all they can to make sure that every child can enjoy their rights; and Article 22 on refugee children says Governments must provide them with appropriate protection and assistance to help them enjoy all the rights of the convention. How is that balancing the rights of the child? I wonder whether the Minister could write to compare and explain—otherwise, I can see that the UK will have to withdraw itself from the rights of the child.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not need to write to answer that. The answer is that there is nothing incompatible with the UNCRC, because obviously a child who is here is having all their rights as a child respected, and if they are exceptionally removed under the circumstances described in the Bill it will be in a manner that is compliant with the UNCRC, particularly if it is for family reunion or for return to a safe country, which is presumably also a signatory to the UNCRC and will afford them their own rights.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
With the greatest respect to the Minister, we have not yet seen the detail. That is the problem. The Minister has outlined two or three areas and said there will be others. It is not clear to this Committee exactly what those details are. I will repeat the earlier request: will he please write and set them all out?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
To my mind, I have set out the detail, but of course I will go back and give it further thought.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister made a slightly unconvincing effort to persuade us that what is envisaged is in the best interests of the child. It rested on a couple of planks. One was that the safest route for the child will be to stop in the first safe country they come to. Hundreds of thousands of them do. If you go to look at the camps in Turkey, Greece or the Lebanon, you see that there are hundreds of thousands of unaccompanied children who have fled from conflict zones and are there. I am not sure that it is in their best interests to be there. There is a minuscule number who come here, perhaps because they speak English and not Greek or Turkish, perhaps because they have family or connections here, or perhaps they have the possibility of a home here. I cannot see why it is in their best interests to go into the camps in the first safe country they come to you and not come to their connections, family or prospects in this country.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I know that the noble Lord and I do not agree, but the international law position is that children, and indeed asylum seekers, cannot be selective about where they wish to seek asylum. It is not an evaluative decision that an applicant can make. That is not the way the refugee convention works and, as we made clear at Second Reading, and as I think was widely accepted across the House, we sadly cannot take everyone who would want to come here—and that, I am afraid, is almost the logical corollary of what the noble Lord suggested.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has chosen not to reply to various points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and me about conformity with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. He has simply stated, “In our view it’s fine”. The committee set up at the United Nations to overview this has considered this legislation and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, has come to the view that it needs to be amended—a view that is rejected by the Minister. Presumably the UK was represented on that committee. Can the Minister give the Committee an account of the British representative’s statement in reply to the criticisms that led to it adopting that opinion?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, that is not something that I would have to hand in the course of the discussion of this amendment, but I will of course look into it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hope the Minister will forgive me, but a narrow but important point of principle was raised by both the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed; they spoke on different matters but on the same issue of principle. One case was about what would happen to a child who came to this country as an infant and was adopted; another, put by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, concerned a child who would not be returned to adequate reception arrangements. I believe that the Minister said to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we can deal with that in regulations—so nothing to worry about there—and the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was that the Government have no intention of removing children to a country which, even if it meets the other criteria in the clause, does not have adequate reception arrangements for an unaccompanied child.
The whole structure of this so-called robust legislation is about creating tightly crafted duties to tie the hands of the Secretary of State. We know what that game is: it is about ensuring that we have, in effect, ousted the court’s supervisory jurisdiction. Powers become “duties to remove” and then, because there is a little ounce of compassion in relation to children, they say they will flip the duty and so there will not be a duty but, in certain circumstances, a power to remove even unaccompanied children. Given that this is the approach of the scheme, why on earth cannot comfort be given in the Bill to both the noble and learned Baroness and the noble Lord on those two limited circumstances? Why can the Bill not say that a child who came as an infant and who has now been adopted by a British national cannot be removed? For a child who would otherwise be removable because they have an identity document—there is a thought—or sent to a country where they are a national but there are no reception arrangements, why can it not be a criteria that there should be adequate reception arrangements? Why cannot that be in a Bill that is so tightly and robustly drawn by the Home Office?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness is always a powerful advocate but, in this instance, these provisions are already clear. As I have said, and for the reasons that I have explained, there is no need, in those limited circumstances, for further exploration in the Bill. As I have said, these are things that we can explore, and doubtless will return to in other parts of the Bill, but for the moment I am afraid there is no need for further additions in relation to those areas.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
In 28 years of service in this House and the other place, I have never had more difficulty in getting an answer to a question.
The Minister has responded several times, and I spoke about it earlier this afternoon. He confirms that local authorities alone have the statutory power to look after these unaccompanied migrant children. He confirms in a Written Answer that the Home Office does not have corporate parent responsibility. So can he tell us which Act of Parliament the Home Office is using to detain these children and put them into these hotels, or—I always say never assume but I am going to break my rule—are we to assume that the Government know they are acting unlawfully?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I must apologise to the noble Lord for not addressing that point in my remarks; I did mean to do so. It is a topic that the House has canvassed in Oral Questions on a number of occasions, particularly, as I seem to remember, in the winter of last year.
The present position will change when this Bill passes. As the noble Lord will have seen, there are provisions in the Bill relating to the transfer of responsibility for children, which set out the responsibility in the context of unaccompanied children. If the noble Lord looks, for example, at Clause 16, he will see that it concerns
“The power to transfer children from Secretary of State to local authority and vice versa”.
The present position arose as a result of the way in which the emergency in the channel has come about. As I said in my Answer, which was very fairly read out by the noble Lord, the clear position is that the responsibility should be for the local authorities, save for the circumstances described in Clauses 15 to 20.
Lord Scriven (LD)
In trying to answer my question, the Minister just reiterated what it says in the equality impact assessment. It was an important question. If the central tenet of the Bill is that children—accompanied or unaccompanied—not being given any dispensation will act as a deterrent, where is the evidence for that? In answering, the Minister said that this was the view of the department. Well it is the view of some children that the tooth fairy exists but, looking at the empirical evidence, it is quite clear that this may not be so. My question is clear: on what empirical evidence is the view of the department built, and when will this House get to see that evidence?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is a fairly standard rhetorical tool to ask where the evidence is but in this kind of field we have to operate looking forwards as to what might happen as a consequence of legislation, applying our own experience, and particularly that of the department in administering the UK border. It is the department, I would suggest, that is in a position to come to a view on these matters. It is not simply a case of some unqualified person reaching that assessment. The net effect is that it is the opinion of the department—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is the opinion of the department that a person would not pay a people smuggler to cross the channel if they were going to be detained and removed. It stands to reason, whatever the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, might shout from a sedentary position.
Lord Scriven (LD)
So the Minister agrees that this is not just about small boats; this is about the whole refugee and immigration system. Where is the evidence that the provisions in this Bill will meet the central issue that the Government wish to address and act as a deterrent to children, whether accompanied or unaccompanied. Where is the evidence?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Obviously, as these provisions are not in force, there is no evidence of the impact of these measures. The noble Lord appears to require me to look into a crystal ball. We can make reasonable conjectures about the effect of these measures, and that is what we have done.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
Some time ago, the Minister asked me if I was willing to withdraw my amendment; I have a feeling that I ought to respond to that request.
This has been an extraordinary debate; I have never known there to be a debate following a request of the person to withdraw their amendment. The speeches from right across the Committee have been extraordinarily and unbelievably powerful because of course this is such an emotive subject. This Government want to detain and lock up children—accompanied, not unaccompanied, in the middle of an adoption or whatever else—in the most appalling accommodation. We know that, because this Government want to copy the model of the Greek islands, where the national view is that that accommodation is unacceptable and inhumane. We know that. That is what the Home Secretary wants to do. It is not surprising that people feel rather strongly against that proposal. That is just part of the proposition. The other is that, once children grow up, whether they are unaccompanied, adopted, leading normal lives over here or whatever else, they should be removed from this country, and of course regulations may determine the circumstances in which they may be required to be removed.
This is an appalling Bill, if I may say so. In a way, the application of the Bill to children just sums up the depth of the inhumanity of this Bill. I like to think that our Minister perhaps does have humanity and that he does respect our international obligations, and our 1989 Act and the rest of it—but he is acting and speaking on behalf of the Home Secretary, and I do seriously question whether she has the humanity that we all want her to have.
It was very important that we not only heard incredibly powerful speeches from the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and Cross-Benchers, but also that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a point on which I think we all agree: this Bill does not reflect what we on any Bench expect from the Conservative Party. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. That is why there is such an incredible unanimity of view that these clauses—Clause 3, Clause 4 and the rest of them—should not stand part of this Bill.
All I can do here is, for today, withdraw Amendment 14 on the basis that without a doubt these matters will return on Report.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 5, line 38.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can be relatively brief in introducing a small group of technical amendments to the Bill and perhaps, if I may say so, allow the House to take a short break from the understandably strong feelings generated by the discussion.
The amendments essentially address three issues. The first is to define the term “national” as including a citizen of the relevant country. Thus Amendment 19 inserts a Bill-wide definition of the term “national”. The effect is that any reference to a country of which a person is a national includes a country of which a person is a citizen. In not all countries are citizenship and nationality exactly the same. Similarly, a reference to a person not being a national of a country is to be read as also referring to a person not being a citizen of that country. Amendment 19 ensures that the Bill is consistent in this regard. Amendments 16, 24, 28, 99 and 141 are simply consequential amendments. Amendment 128 makes a similar change to Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
The second group of technical amendments ensures that the word “court”, where it appears in the Bill, includes a tribunal. That is in relation specifically to Amendment 25A, which refers to the definition of an application for judicial review. The definition of the application for a judicial review in Clause 4(6) is extended so that it covers an application to a tribunal. That will specifically be the judicial review jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
The substantive issues about the scope of judicial reviews—whether they are non-suspensive or not, and the related provisions of Clause 52 and 55—will, I am sure, be debated in due course. The effect of Amendment 25A, and the associated Amendments 115C, 116A, 117A, 123A and 123B, is to make it clear that the relevant provisions in each case apply to tribunal proceedings, especially proceedings in the Upper Tribunal, as they do to proceedings in the High Court or the Court of Session.
Finally, the third group of amendments includes Amendments 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 and 38, which relate to the country to which certain persons who satisfy the conditions in Clause 2 may be removed to. Effectively, they treat persons who hold a passport or an identity document from the country in question as if they were nationals or citizens of that country. If, for example, an Indian national had a French identity document, they could be returned to France, assuming that there were no exceptional circumstances preventing their removal there. In other words, it is simply to treat persons who have obtained an identity document in the same way as they would be treated were they a national or citizen of that country.
I am happy of course to deal with any points that arise, but I do hope that these relatively technical amendments find favour with the Committee, and I beg to move Amendment 16.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will just ask the Minister for clarification with regard to countries that we do not recognise or areas where there are territorial disputes. Two of the main areas people are coming to the UK from, which the Government wish to stop, are conflict-afflicted areas because of territorial disputes, where the UN has a particular mechanism of providing humanitarian identification.
Is it the government position that all those people will have to come from a state that we recognise? By definition, many of the asylum seekers are seeking asylum because they are being persecuted because they are on one side of a territorial dispute—some of these geographical areas I have visited. The Government in this Bill now seem to be indicating that they will come to a side with regard to which identification documents, either national or citizenship, they will recognise. Why is this the case?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the proposed amendments are to cover the technical situation where somebody who is not necessarily a citizen or a national happens to hold an identity document of that country, and therefore—almost by definition, but certainly by strong presumption—is clearly someone who has a close relationship with that country. Assuming it is a safe country and that there are no other circumstances that might create an exception, that is a place to which they should normally be returned. If, as I think the question is posing, there are real risks in sending that person back to a particular country, the procedures in the Bill kick in. That would be a question of fact in each case.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the government amendments. I have two questions. First, what would be the status of people who have no passport: stateless people? Of course, there are stateless people in refugee camps. There are, perhaps preponderantly in refugee camps but also elsewhere, people who have no recognised state.
Secondly, it so happens that I was in the West Bank in Palestine last week. Palestinians who live in the West Bank are entitled to a Jordanian passport. They are not entitled to an Israeli passport, but they have an identity document as Palestinians in the West Bank. That is a different category from the category of people who are completely stateless. I am wondering whether the Minister could explain how these two particular examples might be accommodated within these government amendments.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I will, if I may, look into the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and give a more precise answer. I think, just as an initial answer, we are essentially dealing with nationals of a country listed in proposed new Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which is to be added by this Bill. They are EU and EEA countries, together with Albania and Switzerland. It is to those countries that this applies. The provisions I referred to relate to EU countries, EEA countries, Albania and Switzerland, and I do not think that they touch at all on the situation of stateless persons in particular, or those who hold a Jordanian but not an Israeli passport, et cetera.
Lord Bellamy
““national” includes citizen;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a Bill-wide definition of “national”. The effect is that references to a country of which a person is a national include a country of which the person is a citizen and references to a person who is (or is not) a national of a country include a person who is (or is not) a citizen of that country. This is for consistency across the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 19A is on modern slavery. I will speak to a series of my other amendments relating to Clauses 4 and 21. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Bach for their support.
I think we are all aware that modern slavery is a brutal crime involving sophisticated criminal networks buying and selling people for profit. Victims of this appalling crime may be forced to enter the UK illegally, coerced, deceived and forced against their will, with their identity and decision-making powers stripped away. If left unamended, the Bill would see victims punished for crimes committed by the perpetrators, deported or held in detention centres, exacerbating pre-existing traumas.
In the past 12 years, organisations such as Hestia—the leading modern slavery charity in the UK—to which I pay great tribute, have supported victims via the modern slavery victim care contract. In that time, these organisations have supported over 18,000 victims of modern slavery. Survivors have been exploited for profit by criminals often operating as part of organised networks, both in the UK and internationally. The Bill will do incredible damage to those efforts.
Clause 4 applies the Bill’s provisions to people who claim to be victims of slavery or human trafficking, or those who have made an application for judicial review in relation to their removal from the UK under the Bill. Clause 21 relates to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, which provides that, once there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of trafficking, states have certain obligations to that person. Under the Bill’s provisions, where a protection or human rights claim falls within subsection (5), it will be declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State and will not be considered in the UK.
Were the Bill to come into effect without any provisions to protect victims from the duty to remove that is set out in Clause 4, many of these survivors would be denied the opportunity to rebuild their lives and reclaim their autonomy, based purely on their route of entry. This would also apply in circumstances of trafficking, where individuals have been forced to enter the country illegally. The Bill will do nothing to break cycles of exploitation or help people to break free of modern slavery. Instead, it will feed the criminal networks that profit from the lives of vulnerable people, and it will undo the great work of the Modern Slavery Act.
Noble Lords will have received a briefing from Justice about its significant concerns that proposals to deport potential victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, without properly considering their claim, are incompatible with Article 4 of the ECHR and the ECAT. The Government say that there will be protections for those supporting criminal investigations and proceedings, but even those limited protections have been watered down in late-stage government amendments in the Commons. Clauses 21(5) and 28 require the Home Secretary to assume that an individual can co-operate with criminal proceedings from abroad, unless there are “compelling circumstances”. But, as Justice says, this is troubling because individuals with vulnerabilities are likely to struggle to co-operate with criminal proceedings from abroad. It faces a further presumption in favour of deporting potential victims of trafficking and modern slavery.
As the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner said during the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 debate, providing a sufficient recovery and reflection period is often essential to enable potential witnesses to co-operate with criminal proceedings—therefore, limiting such support
“will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups”.
We discussed this at Second Reading, when the Minister claimed that
“The modern slavery clauses are fundamentally about preventing dangerous and illegal crossings that pose a threat to public order … the national referral mechanism offers world-leading protections to victims of modern slavery, and we must be alert to the risk that these protections will be used to frustrate removal action. Last year, 17,000 referrals took on average 543 days to reach a conclusive-grounds decision, making modern slavery protections susceptible to misuse”.
He argued:
“The NRM referral rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% of detentions ending in 2019—that is, 50 people—to 73% in 2021 … Modern slavery laws are, therefore, an inextricable part of an immigration system that is open to being misused in order to block removals”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1923.]
That is surely flawed logic. As Justice says, it is the Home Office-approved first responders who refer individuals to the competent authority if there are suspicions that someone is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. Some 90% of the competent authority’s decisions last year were positive—in other words, decisions that there were reasonable grounds that someone was a victim of trafficking and modern slavery. Some 91% of conclusive grounds decisions were also positive, so where is the evidence that the system is being abused? Surely the Home Office’s own data highlights the overwhelming majority of credible victims of trafficking and modern slavery. As Theresa May made clear at Second Reading in the other place:
“The Home Office knows that the Bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 593.]
Furthermore, by closing the route to safety and support, the Bill risks strengthening the hands of trafficking networks. Traffickers keep people under their control with threats that they will not receive help if they reach out to the authorities. The Bill will substantiate that claim and further dissuade survivors from coming forward. We know that successful prosecutions of traffickers rely on the testimony and co-operation of those whom they exploit. As it stands, the Bill would have a devastating impact on survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking, offering them no recourse for support or protection, removing them from the country, leaving them entirely unsupported and leaving criminal gangs and traffickers unchecked.
My amendments first seek to remove the inclusion of people who claim to be victims of slavery or human trafficking from the provision in Clause 4 under which the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible. My amendments to Clause 21 seek to amend the Bill so that a person who is in the process of being referred by a first responder to a competent authority, who awaits its reasonable grounds decision, who receives a positive reasonable grounds decision, who has a positive conclusive grounds decision or who is challenging a negative reasonable grounds or conclusive grounds decision may remain within the main referral system in the UK and subsequently receive modern slavery support, subject to Section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act, which includes protections from being removed.
These amendments essentially seek to ensure that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I sat out the Second Reading debate in favour of a meeting of the Constitution Committee, in which we discussed our draft report on the Bill. That report is no substitute for the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—which I, for one, await with impatience—although I hope that it does deserve study. It discusses, in particular, the remarkable variety in the Bill of what might be called ouster clauses. Among them is Clause 4(2), which is the subject of Amendment 21, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, who cannot be here today, and to which I have added my name.
Some ouster clauses are aimed at restricting appeals or reviews from the decisions of a legally qualified tribunal. Examples include Clauses 49 and 51, which appear to be modelled on Section 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Privacy International case concerned an ouster of that nature.
More fundamental in their scope are the ousters in Clauses 4, 12 and 55. They bite not on claims that have already been adjudicated by tribunals but on claims that have never been adjudicated by any court or tribunal—and, in the case of Clause 4, any claim to the effect that removal from this country would be contrary not only to our laws against slavery and human trafficking, as we have just heard, but to the refugee convention, the Human Rights Act and the principles applied by the courts on judicial review. Such claims can be pursued, if at all—I am mindful of the jurisdictional limitations on the Human Rights Act—only after removal from the United Kingdom.
Through the kind offices of the Bar Council, I spoke this morning to a number of immigration law practitioners. They told me that so-called bring-backs, historically, have been vanishingly rare. Indeed, they are measurable in single figures. These are people who win their cases from abroad and then see those judgments implemented in the sense that they are brought back. Pursuing such a claim from out of country seems, for most people, to be a remedy which, in the time-honoured phrase, is not practical and effective but theoretical and illusory.
Clause 4 is supported by two buttresses: Clause 52, which prevents our courts issuing interim measures to prevent or delay removal; and Clause 53, which, if passed into law, will give parliamentary authority to Ministers to disregard interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights. A final nail is hammered into the coffin of judicial review by government Amendment 25A, which was debated in the previous group.
The Minister will no doubt say that the effect of the Clause 4 ouster is mitigated by the new suspensive claims provided for by Clauses 37 to 51 to deal with cases of serious harm and factual error. That is right, but only up to a point. The problem with those clauses is not only the punishing time limits and evidential requirements proposed in the Bill but their limited scope of application. For example, they afford no scope to challenge removal on slavery and human trafficking grounds, on private and family life grounds, or for the breach of elementary legal principles, such as prejudging and procedural error.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood referred to at Second Reading, the difficulty we face as a revising Chamber is that this degradation of existing judicial powers to keep the Executive in check is a feature of this legislation and not a bug. The Government’s theory of deterrence is based, in significant part, on the neutering of the courts. No doubt we will have to decide on Report whether we think that the objectives of the Bill, and the likelihood of achieving them, are enough to justify such a significant rebalancing of powers. If we think that they are not, we will have to decide whether to try to reverse the ousters in Clause 4 or to work with the grain of the Bill, however unpalatable we may find it, and seek to increase the range and feasibility of the new suspensive claims. In any event, it may not be controversial, but, in the words of a unanimous Constitution Committee:
“The cumulative impact of the ouster and partial ouster provisions in the Bill gives rise to very considerable constitutional implications”.
I wonder whether the Minister agrees.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I will endeavour not to repeat some of the arguments that have already been put forward; it is a challenge that most of us have failed, and I will probably fail it too.
In the Bill, there is an unprecedented step that it would make any asylum application made by someone who arrives irregularly in the UK permanently inadmissible. If declared inadmissible, they cannot subsequently enter the UK’s asylum process. That means that they are out of the system for ever, simply because of the method by which they have arrived in this country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that the Bill
“would amount to an asylum ban”,
as it would the extinguish
“the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how compelling their claim may be”.
The UNHCR goes on to say that, if other countries followed suit, we would see an end to refugee protection. That is a pretty dismal comment, but I have no reason to doubt that the UNHCR is accurate in its assessment. I repeat something which should be beyond argument: the UNHCR knows about the 1951 convention, and surely the UNHCR must be seen as the guardian of that convention. So if the Government are going to disagree with the UNHCR, they have to be on pretty firm grounds before they do so.
I will not repeat the conditions stated in Clause 2—we are familiar with them—but I will note that, even if people cannot be removed from the UK, their claims will still be permanently inadmissible. That is a significant change from the current inadmissibility scheme put in place after the UK’s exit from the EU as it also left the Dublin system. Under this scheme, if the UK Government believe that somebody did claim or could or should have claimed asylum in another country, their asylum claim could be potentially deemed inadmissible. However, the current scheme requires another country to have agreed to take the person before the inadmissibility decision can be made. The Home Office guidance on the inadmissibility procedures says that getting an agreement should take a maximum of six months in most cases. We are in a situation where there can be no progress for those individuals, except in this very negative sense.
The Home Office’s own statistics—I rely on the Refugee Council for some of this information—show how rare an occurrence this is. Between January 2021 and the end of December 2022
“of 18,494 applications that were potentially inadmissible only 83 inadmissibility decisions have been served”,
with only 21 removals. As a result, nearly 10,000 people have had their claims subsequently admitted into the UK’s asylum system following an unnecessary delay.
This Bill changes the current inadmissibility system by removing the requirement to have a removal agreement in place with another country before an inadmissibility decision can be reached. Instead, it makes any claim automatically and permanently inadmissible. It does not give the Home Secretary any discretion to consider the claim, and indeed the noble Lord in the previous speech challenged the Home Secretary’s lack of discretion in these procedures.
The Bill does very little to make it likely that more people will be able to be removed. Clause 5 allows people from 32 countries designated as safe countries whose asylum applications have been ruled inadmissible to be returned to their home country. Nationals of all other countries outside this list cannot be returned to their home country. This includes someone whose claim is highly likely to be successful, such as an Afghan or a Syrian, or someone whose claim could potentially be refused if it was actually processed. Instead, they can be removed only to one of the 57 third countries listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill. However, the agreement with Rwanda is the only removal agreement that the UK has in place that includes third country nationals, and the legal and tactical challenges faced by that scheme are well documented. Even if it becomes operational, it will not be possible to remove the thousands of people whose claims are deemed inadmissible to Rwanda.
We are in a real difficulty with this situation. The Home Office has yet to set out how many people it believes will be impacted by the Bill, as we have already discussed. However, given the current 0.7% success rate of removing people under the inadmissibility process, the Refugee Council estimates that at the end of the third year of the Bill between 161,000 and 192,000 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not yet have been removed. They will be unable to have their asylum claims processed, and therefore unable to work, and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely, which is predicted to cost between £5 billion and £6 billion in the first three years. They will be stuck in a permanent limbo. I hope the Minister can explain how they can get out of that limbo, unless the Government suddenly produce a range of countries with which return agreements have been agreed.
This is a pretty miserable clause in a miserable Bill. I believe that this amendment could go some little way towards making the Bill somewhat less bad than it is.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have signed some amendments which were tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who has asked me to apologise for his absence today. I am not going to speak to those in any detail because, as is typical of my noble and learned friend, the explanatory statements which he has added to those amendments say it all, and make them very easy to understand.
What concerns me about this debate is that it has a degree of abstraction which perhaps conceals what really lies in front of the debates we are having. Recently, I went to a meeting to discuss asylum and refugee status in one of our cities. Present at that meeting was a woman in her 30s, with three children, who is living in a hostel in that city. She has now been waiting for 10 years—with her children, some born after her arrival here—to know the result of her wish to be treated as an asylum seeker.
The Minister earlier today—it seems like many hours ago but it is probably only about two and a half—referred, when he was answering an intervention, to an emergency having occurred. If that is an emergency—because this Government have been in place for well over 10 years—then it makes the creation of a baby elephant seem like the speed of sound. It has happened on their watch. Why? In truth—and it is long before the Minister became involved in these issues and became a valued Member of your Lordships’ House—they did not do what they needed to do to anticipate what was going to happen. That is why cases such as that of the woman I referred to took place.
In another city, I met a young man, now in his mid-20s, who had arrived in the United Kingdom illegally in the back of a lorry. He climbed out of the lorry and had nowhere to go. He slept in a doorway and the next day he did what he was told was a good thing to do and went to the local police station and asked the police for help. As it happens, they were very sympathetically disposed to him. He was then about 17 and a half. He was refused permission to remain in this country and he was refused asylum. He appealed and his appeal was allowed. I am delighted to say that the reason he came to see me was that he is about to start a career as a barrister. This is obviously a very good thing for anyone to do, as I would say, and I know a number of noble and learned friends, including the Minister, will agree with me when I say that. I am trying to discourage him, as a sort of mentor, from doing only asylum work because there is so much more to do as a barrister. I may be winning that battle. That is the actuality we are dealing with in these cases.
What we are facing here, to use the Minister’s words, is apparently an emergency to oust the use of judicial review. Before I got up to speak, we heard three really superb speeches. I do not want to repeat everything that was said but I agree with it all. All those speeches demonstrated, I suggest, that the ouster of judicial review, as has been the approach of the courts and indeed of Parliament over the decades, should happen only very rarely. It is not unheard of, but it should happen only very rarely when the necessity to oust judicial review is demonstrated and, above all, when it is fair and proportional to do so. Surely the ouster of judicial review is neither fair nor proportional in a situation in which we find many cases coming before the courts but it is not the fault of the real people who want to go to those courts. Let us not forget that a very large number of that cohort are allowed asylum and refugee status when they go to the courts. This is not an unworthy cohort going to court for the sake of it; people often win their cases. Do we in your Lordships’ House, with so many experienced people, particularly those who have seen the courts in action, really want to oust that activity of the courts?
Let us look at the figures for a moment. I know that there are many cases in tribunals. I have never had the advantage of serving as a member of the asylum et cetera tribunal or Upper Tribunal but I have had the privilege of serving as a deputy judge in the Administrative Court for many years, dealing with many asylum cases. I think everybody imagines—I wish to disabuse the non-lawyers in the Committee—that these cases are all run into the ground by long-winded lawyers such as myself who try to make the cases run for ever and ever in order to enhance our fees; the sort of Daily Mail “sidebar of shame” view of what lawyers do.
Let me tell your Lordships what happens in the Administrative Court. A judge turns up for a day’s sitting and often starts with paper applications. About 11% of the cases have already been filtered out as being totally without merit and do not even come before the judge doing the paper applications—the paper apps, as they are called. The judge then spends the day in his or her judge’s room dealing with the paper apps, usually dealing with about 12 in a day—maybe a few less, maybe a few more. They take therefore very little time at all.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard some very good speeches on this group already. I want to revert to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and the points he made about trafficking and slavery. I have to say that the last speech and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, impressed me immensely. I was on the same review of the Bar Council earlier this morning and I can confirm, for what it is worth, exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the dangers of ouster in the Bill. I am not going to speak about that.
I should say that I have not spoken on the Bill before: I was down to speak at Second Reading but I decided that 84 or 85 speakers was probably just about enough. My view, I am afraid to tell the Minister, like those of so many who are taking part in this Committee, is that it is an absolutely disgraceful Bill and I cannot believe that any British Government of any complexion are bringing it forward.
I put my name down in support of my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. I have little to add to his speech except that it appears to me that it is an area where the Government can and should give ground pretty easily. It is surely beyond ridiculous that important legislation brought in with practically universal support as recently as 2015 should be undermined so fundamentally by a Government of the same party; so much so that, as has been mentioned, the Prime Minister at the time, responsible in many ways for the bringing in of the Act, has expressed her opinion in another place that the Bill’s provisions
“will drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/23; col. 886.]
I was a police and crime commissioner at the time the Act was effectively coming into force—I started a year after 2015—and police support for the assistance that the Act gave in this very difficult area of law, particularly difficult in prosecuting and convicting very clever and very bad criminals, was absolutely evident. The police, certainly where I was and I suspect more widely, were pleased with the Act. They knew it meant harder work, but the chance of actually locking up dangerous men—and women, no doubt—was added to appreciably. Enthusiastic and positive meetings and arrangements were held and, while it is never going to be easy to catch the wicked criminals behind trafficking, little did any of us involved in those discussions think that, only a few years later, the difficult task facing the police and others in arresting, prosecuting and convicting these villains would be made more difficult—I would say much more difficult—by proposed government legislation.
Make no mistake—this is my final point—that the Government will not easily be forgiven, it seems to me, by a very large portion of society if the improvements so recently given are effectively removed, with the result that fewer victims are helped and fewer criminals are punished.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to the effects on the modern slavery legislation. In a sense, just as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about this being an ouster of judicial review, so, in some respects, it is an ouster of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 as well. Why is this necessary? The Home Secretary says that the system is being abused, to justify removal of the protections for victims of trafficking and modern slavery. In response to that, both Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP, former leader of the Conservative Party, and Theresa May, former Prime Minister, have said in terms that there is no evidence to justify that claim. That is why it is right that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has moved this amendment. He made a terrific speech and I fully endorse and support everything he said.
The amendment seeks to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the national referral mechanism and have it considered. I ask the Minister for one potential exception: if he cannot accept the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord then, reverting to the previous group of amendments, what about the situation of children in those circumstances? Are they going to be included in a catch-all, or will the Minister accept that there should at least be an exemption for them?
My noble friend Lord Anderson talked about the anticipated report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I do not think he will have long to wait for that, but what are already available are the statements given to that committee in public evidence sessions. I was very struck by one, and there is an echo here of something that my noble friend Lord Carlile referred to earlier, which is the personal effects on individuals. We heard in camera from a young woman who had been trafficked into this country and used by a family from the Middle East literally as a modern-day slave. She escaped and managed, dressed just in nightclothes, to find her way to central London where, in Piccadilly Circus, she was helped by a volunteer who introduced her to other members of the Filipino community. I am happy to say that she has been able to make a life for herself as a result of a referral to the national referral mechanism. Take that away from people and what opportunity will they have to make good lives for themselves or to have any kind of safety? At least let us have a disapplication for children and give them the opportunity to be referred through the national referral mechanism.
Finally, since I said I would try to be brief and concise, I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has had a careful look at the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking and the obligations we are signed up to. Does he recognise the view that has been expressed by many who know far more about this than I do that we will be in breach of ECAT if this goes through in its present form, and also that we are likely to be in breach of Article 4 of the ECHR in its prohibition on slavery? Are those questions that the Minister and his officials are looking at seriously? Have they attached sufficient weight to them? What is his view about the exemption of children?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 19A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and congratulate him on a very informative and excellent speech. I said at Second Reading that the Bill
“should exclude those who are already subjected to abuse through the heinous crime of modern slavery”
and quoted the former Prime Minister, who had said in the other place:
“It has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 809.]
I said that the Bill was
“using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1902.]
and that remains my position today.
We know that genuine victims will be penalised through the Bill. There are many amendments tabled, either to mitigate the harm, or to seek much more analysis before Clauses 21 to 28 can come into effect. Those will be debated in a later group, and I hope to speak then too. However, Amendment 19A gets straight to the heart of the matter. Clause 4(1)(c) says that the duties to remove people who have arrived by irregular means should apply regardless of whether a person claims to be a victim of modern slavery. Amendment 19A would remove that presumption.
We should be debating whether modern slavery victims should be within the scope of the Bill because that question speaks to our values and our international obligations. Our long-held values have said that these individuals need safeguarding, not penalising. The UK has been seen as a leading light in how it has responded to human trafficking. This Bill would take us significantly down the league table. Overnight, our world-leading reputation has been tarnished because we have decided that to stop the few, our obligations to the majority should cease.
I am sure the Minister will tell us that the Government recognise that these are exceptional circumstances and for that reason have included a sunset clause. Lest we should be reassured by that, let us consider, first, that the sunset clause can be extended. Secondly, in the meantime, thousands of victims will not get support, and will be detained and removed. One of the Council of Europe’s committees said that the Bill endangered victims. We are endorsing that as acceptable. Thirdly, our Article 4 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights include
“a legislative and administrative framework to prevent and punish trafficking and to protect victims”.
Article 15 makes it clear there is no derogation from this requirement in a time of emergency. But that is what the Government are arguing—that “exceptional circumstances” allow us to wipe away the protections that are in place across the UK for these exploited individuals.
It is no wonder that there are serious doubts about the UK meeting its international obligations. I urge the Government to heed the warnings and rethink, and I commend the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to the Committee.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am co-chairman of the APPG on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery and I am the vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I bitterly regret not putting my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, which I was a bit slow to read.
I want to make three points. I entirely agree with what has been said already by noble Lords. First, on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, makes about the Act and the reputation, as it happens, Frank Field MP—now the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead—chaired a small group of two MPs and myself who advised Theresa May as Home Secretary on whether there should be a modern slavery Bill. More recently, the noble Lord, Lord Field, another MP and I wrote a report on how the Modern Slavery Act had managed over the years. It has already been said that this Bill drives a coach and horses through the Act. It is tragic that it is the same Conservative Government—a different Prime Minister, but the same Conservative Government—who, having put through one of the greatest and most innovative of Acts of Parliament, which was applauded around the world, now choose to behave like this. Of course, it will very adversely affect our reputation, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, has just said. That is really very sad.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, whenever there is a reference to the ouster of the courts and tribunals in the context of this Bill, I think how ironic it is that we heard from the Government that they cannot give a certificate of compatibility with the Human Rights Act because it has not been tested by the courts.
Here again, it seems to me that we are conflating modern slavery and trafficking with immigration. That is misconceived and it is immoral. My name is on a number of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—not all of them, but this was due to the nature of the process, not any disregard of those amendments. An awful lot of organisations were continuing to suggest amendments pretty much as we walked into the Chamber.
The concern about this is very widespread. The amendments in this group are going in the same direction. Everyone who has spoken shares a concern about victims being scapegoated and their positions not understood. I have so much admiration for people such as the Filipino—I assume a domestic servant—the young man mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. What people manage to do with their lives after the experiences they have gone through leaves me almost lost for words and feeling huge responsibility to try to do my best for them, even if it is not a very good best. We heard earlier today about the arrangements that the Government have for returns. The very fact that the Government have recently been negotiating with Moldova, Bulgaria and I do not know who else, about co-operation to prevent trafficking—I think it is trafficking and not just, if you can use the word “just”, smuggling—indicates the Government’s clear awareness that this is all happening. But negotiation is not a result.
The Government must not ignore that asylum seekers smuggled in are very vulnerable to exploitation as a result of the Government’s own policies. I may, at some other time, if I can and if she will allow me, quote the very apt and succinct description by the noble and learned Baroness, “escape does not mean exit”. People have said this at greater lengths during proceedings on this Bill, but that really does sum it up.
Not for the first time, those of us who have added our names to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seem to be a little band who work together. I will not repeat everything that has been said, but the Secretary of State sets rules for other people—in this case, very vulnerable people—so there must be consequences if the Secretary of State does not observe or fails the rules she has set.
The British Red Cross and others have been very clear about the effect of limbo on physical and mental health. It is not surprising that people now disappear into the black economy, exploitation and destitution. They must feel that they are being treated as if they are not human. Limbo should not be indefinite. I do not know how the provisions fit with the Home Office’s own guidance that the inadmissibility process, which currently does apply in some circumstances, must not create a lengthy limbo where delaying means the claimant cannot advance his or her protection claim.
Clause 4(3) deals with claims which are declared inadmissible. I ask again: what data will be published about claims which have been declared to be inadmissible? Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will publish details, particularly the numbers, of declarations of inadmissibility? I cannot see that they will be regarded as claims which are refused because they never get to the stage of being considered. It is essential that we know how this Bill is working—if that is the right way to describe how the Bill, and maybe an Act, will proceed.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I signed the intention to oppose the Question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.
I do not often say anything good about this Government but they do, at times, think outside the box. They really do think up novel practices and novel moves in all sorts of areas. I admire massively the people who have gone through this Bill and put amendments forward. Sometimes I have time to do that myself on Bills. This particular clause is so bad—how can we improve it? There are two particularly dangerous proposals, which we have already heard. The first is that the courts will not be able to pause or prevent a deportation, even where that deportation will be clearly unlawful. Secondly, the Government can, by diktat, declare a person’s human rights as inadmissible. Where does that come from? Who thought that up? It is just incredibly creative. As it is novel practice, it is also dangerous. A precedent is being set that the Government can simply rule that some people do not have any human rights and that a Government can act unlawfully without any intervention from the courts. Human rights are for everyone—which is something this Government seem to forget—or they are not human rights. The courts must be allowed to protect those rights against the Government.
We have to stop this illegal Bill. I see no option but to start voting out chunks of it. If we can possibly intervene at the end, we should vote all of it down.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have given notice of my intention to oppose this clause standing part. I was also able to meet the Bar Council this morning, and it was very interesting to hear its views about current practices and the difficulties following through from this law that might arise.
I want to address two or three issues in this clause which set it apart. I of course support wholeheartedly the human trafficking amendment. I talked at Second Reading about a case involving a young person who, if the current Bill were to become an Act, would be placed in perpetual slavery or alternatively deported to somewhere she has no knowledge of and no friends or people she could communicate with.
The two issues I will look at are the impact this will have upon this country and whether the Minister is going to be able to tell us whether or not the fears that people have expressed are actually true. One of the first ones is the fear of people living in limbo for years and years. The second one is about whether it is disgraceful lawyers and traffickers who have caused the problems we are now facing. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for debunking the issue of lawyers having that responsibility put upon them by what he called the Daily Mail sidebars.
It is important to realise that there are a significant number of issues sitting behind this clause which will affect people profoundly. Essentially, this clause is the Government’s trump card upon which it can play: there is no way you can come to this country if you are one of the vast and overwhelming majority of people seeking asylum from the fear of living in countries which are under siege or war, or where people’s reputations are at risk.
We hear today that government papers which have been put aside—unless some people have spotted them—say that in the first two years between £3 billion and £6 billion extra will be required to make sure that they can cope with the number of people living in limbo. These sorts of government papers do not just fall into hands, because somebody else outside of government has written them. The figures themselves must have some credibility. They hold truth and light for those who believe that there is no way that people can be sent elsewhere under this Bill, given the limited circumstances.
I ask the Minister to repeat his claim that there is no limit on the number of people who can be sent from this country to Rwanda. No limit, he said—does that mean 150,000 or 170,000? Is that the case? We heard this morning from the lawyers who were dealing with the very small number of cases attempting to bring people back from Rwanda who had had their claims misheard that the Government did not tell them about the circumstances surrounding their existence in that country. One of the barristers concerned found out that it is an offence in Rwanda to speak out against the Government. That issue was the one that played a big hand in them being able to work around the legislation to be able to bring back incredibly small numbers of people to our country.
The third issue is the assertion by the Minister earlier that this is an emergency. If it is an emergency then obviously it is an emergency that has been going on for many years. The claim by the Prime Minister this morning that the policy we are talking about is already working is not borne out by the figures that the Government themselves provided on 25 May. Those are the only figures that are available to see, and this Government have an adverse nature to giving figures to us in any other way.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, sensing an overwhelming desire in the House to discuss the National Health Service (Dental Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, I shall be very brief. I do not know whether we still do it, but we used to send some people to jail on conviction at His Majesty’s pleasure. They had, of course, their day in court. They had access to legal support. Had they been convicted, they could have appealed. What Amendment 23 is trying to do—the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to which I have added my name—is ensure that we are not sending asylum seekers whose cases we are refusing to consider into detention at His Majesty’s pleasure; that is, an indeterminate sentence. That is how I read the Bill and how the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reads the Bill. That is what the Government have in mind. I cannot believe that it is right to send people into limbo of that kind.
I do not know whether the right answer to the question is the one in the amendment: a six- month time limit. If the Government have not found somewhere to send them and if they have not found someone to take them, they must consider the case under the Immigration Rules after six months have passed. It seems to me a reasonable proposition, but perhaps the Government have another one. One way or another, one has to avoid creating the situation where people are in limbo outside our systems—in effect, stateless because they cannot go back to their own home for fear, and we are keeping them locked up, so they cannot take part in our society. We cannot let that run for ever. We cannot pass that into the law of the land as a desirable, or even a permissible, situation. The Government must come up with some answer if they do not agree with the noble Lord’s amendment, as I do.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the interesting dinnertime discussion, I just want to raise a point as a non-lawyer about Amendment 20, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Its purpose is to
“enable an application for judicial review to be made while the applicant is in the UK”.
We had a very interesting point from the noble Lord, Lord German, about what he described, fairly accurately, as Daily Mail sidebar accusations about the nature of judicial review. It was very helpful to have that short seminar from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on what actually happens in the Administrative Courts and how it is not a question of lawyers making lots of money out of rather dodgy cases. I think he is right. Although I have never been to the Administrative Court, but I am sure he reflected that very faithfully.
Surely, however, if this amendment is passed, it will drive a coach and horses through the main purpose of this Bill, which is to deter people from crossing the channel in small boats. If you then give them the opportunity when arriving in this country in a small boat of immediately seeking judicial review, and that is in the Bill designed to stop them coming across the channel, will that not destroy the whole purpose of the Bill? I merely put that question as a non-lawyer; it seems to me inimical to the very heart of the Bill, whatever one’s view.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I just want to ask him this question. Would he be happy about legislation being passed that meant that people who had a justifiable claim to asylum were never allowed to pursue that claim to asylum—that is, a justifiable claim under international and existing United Kingdom law?
Lord Horam (Con)
No, I am just saying that if the amendment were accepted, it would be entirely inimical to the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think, to some extent, that that is the point of the amendment. I am scared of dentists, so I have no desire to rush into a debate about dentistry, but I was waiting because at least from the Conservative Benches we heard a speech. I was counting how many. Every one had voted for this Bill, but it is amazing how many are coy when it comes to defending what is going to be the reality: that if a young woman is trafficked from a war zone, is raped on the way and arrives in the UK having been lied to, the response is no longer what had been the case; namely, that a first responder in assessing her needs would refer her to protection—the British way. Now, the first responder will say, “You have no rights under modern slavery or trafficking legislation in the UK at all. Not only that but you will be detained and you will be deported”. So, please, can we have some defence of this from the Conservative Benches? If they are not going to defend it, please do not vote for it. Only vote for something that you are willing to defend. It might just be that if the whole purpose of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, is deterrence, why stop here? If it is going to be deterrence for an emergency, why stop at this measure? If the Government act in an emergency on a situation of great importance and it is to deter, should it not be on the basis of evidence?
We heard earlier from the Minister saying that one person’s evidence is another person’s assertion. He did not say exactly that; I am putting words into his mouth so that I can disagree with them, but he basically said, “Well, it’s our view that this is the case”.
It was in 2019 that the Government promoted with fanfare a £10 million policy centre. The government press release said:
“Efforts to uncover the true scale of modern slavery, expose more trafficking networks and better inform our action to stamp out these crimes have been boosted today following the government’s investment of £10 million to create a cutting-edge Policy and Evidence Centre for Modern Slavery and Human Rights”.
That was universally welcomed. The Government said that our response to this crisis would be evidence-led and that we would then act on it. There was universal support for that.
That centre—the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre—which is still receiving Home Office funds in 2023-24 to do this job and inform the Government, says of the Bill:
“Thousands of potential victims of modern slavery may be denied protections by the modern slavery provisions in the Bill. This will include people for whom their entry to the UK is an integral element of the criminal offence of trafficking committed against them”.
It goes on to say:
“The need for these provisions is predicated on the UK Government’s assumption that people are ‘abusing’ the modern slavery system, and that the system is an incentive for illegal migration to the UK. The available evidence questions both of these assumptions”.
Finally, it says:
“The modern slavery measures in the Bill are incompatible with the UK’s obligations”.
I would rather drive a coach and horses through proposals from the Government that are not based on evidence and put in their place evidence-based policies that are likely to work. I declare an interest: I have supported schemes in the Horn of Africa through to the Gulf which are trying to support victims of human trafficking and forced labour.
The Bill will not only not work; it will undermine our reputation around the world. That is shameful. It is not only shameful for our global reputation—I hope we can rebuild that—but it is even more shameful for that young woman who was lied to, trafficked to the UK and would now effectively be a double victim.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group. As many noble Lords have said, victims of slavery or human trafficking should not be further victimised by the provisions of the Bill. As many briefings with which noble Lords have been provided—for which I personally am very grateful—have pointed out, these provisions play into the hands of traffickers and perpetrators of modern slavery. Victims will face the dilemma of further exploitation or deportation, and the criminals will use the provisions in the Bill to enforce their hold on their victims, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. Speaking as a former police officer, I say that it is difficult enough to get victims to give evidence in court, let alone victims of modern slavery or trafficking who have been deported to another country.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, referrals to the national referral mechanism are made by officials, making abuse of the system unlikely. That is reinforced by the fact that a very high proportion of the claims are actually supported.
For the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, gave, we agree with the conclusions of the Constitution Committee that the cumulative impact of the ouster and partial ouster provisions in the Bill give rise to very considerable and, I argue, dangerous constitutional implications. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has said, this could have potentially fatal consequences for individuals.
The effects on physical and mental health of the Home Office’s policies of placing people in limbo are well documented. We support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to limit the damage by placing a six-month limit on refusal to consider a protection claim or human rights claim. In doing so, we agree very strongly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. For the reasons my noble friend Lord German has explained, we believe that this clause should also not be part of the Bill.
So far as emergencies are concerned, is it not the case that the only emergency is the huge backlog of undecided asylum claims—and that it is an emergency which is entirely the responsibility of the Home Office?
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak previously on the Bill, but I support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has added his name to this little band, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to them. I have been holding back in the hope that he would land, but his aircraft has been delayed.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group focuses on the disregarding of protection claims, trafficking claims, human rights claims and judicial review, as outlined first in Clause 4. This is quite a large group, with different strategies to remove or edit Clause 4 to remove the duty on the Secretary of State to declare human rights claims and other claims inadmissible if the person arrives into the UK illegally.
My noble friend Lord Dubs has tabled Amendment 23, which would mean that a protection or human rights claim must be considered if the person has not been removed within six months. In his very eloquent speech he said that it would have the effect of trying to reduce the number of people who are effectively in a permanent limbo—he gave the figure of 160,000 who are stuck in this status. As he said, the amendment goes a little way to ameliorating this position. I am glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry supports my noble friend.
My other noble friend Lord Hunt’s series of amendments beginning with Amendment 19A would ensure that potential and recognised victims of trafficking would not be removed before they got the opportunity to submit an application to the national referral mechanism and have it considered. His amendments would remove trafficking from the list of claims that the Secretary of State can ignore, so although they would help trafficking victims, they would not help others making claims under different legislation, which would remain on the list. In my noble friend’s speech he referred to the Liberty brief, which I also found extremely helpful, and to the statistics there about the increase in the NRM claims we have seen over recent years, to which the Home Office makes particular reference. My noble friend made the point that the Bill as currently drafted would dissuade victims of modern slavery from coming forward.
As a youth magistrate, I very much recognise the point about the modern slavery system and the national referral system getting completely overwhelmed by the number of referrals into that method of checking for modern slavery. Certainly, in my experience as a youth magistrate, it almost logjammed the system of reviewing what I might call normal criminal cases referred into the NRM, which were sometimes stuck in that system for literally one or two years.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, gave a couple of very appropriate anecdotes. He did not particularly explain the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, but, as he said, they were fully explained by the noble and learned Lord himself. I think the central point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was making was that the people who find themselves making appeals are not an unworthy cohort. They very often win their claims, so surely we should be reinforcing and backing up the systems we have signed up to in international law for protecting claims of legitimate claimants.
I think all other noble Lords supported my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendments; in fact, most noble Lords supported all the amendments in this group. I just want to make a particular aside to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who also supported my noble friend Lord Hunt. As he will know, he facilitated a trip for me to Ballymena district court, where I sat in on a youth court. I found it very interesting that the Modern Slavery Act has not been enacted in Northern Ireland. I have tried to get an explanation for that but, as far as I know, I have not received one. Although I am sure that the noble Lord supports the Modern Slavery Act, I find it surprising that the Act has not been enacted for young people in Northern Ireland.
As I said, I think all noble Lords who have spoken on this group of amendments have supported them. In many ways they go to the heart of the Bill, because it is where the Government are seeking to step away from some of the commitments they have made in a number of treaties and in a number of different forums over many decades. It is for the Government to justify why they should take such a radical step.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 4 provides that if a person meets any of the four conditions set out in Clause 2, regardless of any claim made by an individual, including a protection claim, a human rights claim against their country of nationality or citizenship, a claim as a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, or an application for judicial review in relation to their removal, they will still fall under the duty to remove.
As such, if a protection or human rights claim is made, this will be declared as inadmissible. Inadmissibility is a long-standing process and is explicitly provided for in UK law, most recently in the strengthened provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act. So although the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was praising the innovation of the Home Office, the concept of inadmissibility is indeed a long-standing one that appeared in immigration legislation from the turn of the millennium.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, correctly identified, Clause 4 is critical to the Bill. By expanding the scope of existing inadmissibility provisions to apply to anyone who has arrived illegally to the UK, the Government’s intention is made clear: namely, that those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and not put their lives at risk by making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK.
We know that some people make spurious claims in a conscious attempt to frustrate their removal. Provisions in Clause 4 will restrict the right to challenge the decision to remove those who enter the UK illegally. In doing so, it will put a stop to the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that those with no right to be here use to thwart their removal. In 2022 there were 60% more small boat arrivals—45,755—than in 2021, when there were 28,526. Our asylum system is consequently under significant pressure, and with this inexorable rise in the number of illegal arrivals adding more pressures to our health, housing, educational and welfare services, the Government must take action and prioritise support for those who are most in need.
We remain committed to working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify those who are most in need so that the UK remains a safe haven for the most vulnerable. Once illegal migration is under control, we will create more safe and legal routes following consultation with local authorities, and that will be subject to an annual cap set by Parliament—we will come on to debate those provisions later in Committee.
The Bill will send an unequivocal message that if you come to the UK on a small boat or via another illegal route, you will never be able to return to the UK or build a life here. It is only right that we prioritise people who come here safely and legally, and it is unfair that those who enter illegally should benefit over those who play by the rules. If people know that there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to get here.
Having set out the purpose of Clause 4, I turn to the specific amendments. First, Amendment 19A and the other amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, effectively seek to exclude all potential victims of modern slavery from the duty to remove and the associated detention powers until a conclusive grounds decision has been made following a referral to the national referral mechanism, or NRM.
There is no escaping that, regrettably, the NRM affords opportunities for those who enter the UK unlawfully to frustrate their removal. In 2022, there were around 17,000 referrals to the NRM—the highest annual number to date and a 33% increase on 2021, when there were 12,706, and a 625% increase on 2014, when there were 2,337. The average time taken from referral to conclusive grounds decisions made in 2022 across the competent authorities was 543 days. Given these decision times, it is self-evident that, were the noble Lord’s amendments to be made, the intentions of this Bill—namely, to deter illegal entry and to allow for the swift removal of those who do enter illegally—would be undermined.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. I am listening very carefully to what he is saying regarding the loophole. My understanding is that a referral to the NRM can be made only by a first responder authorised by the Home Office; that first responders have to be certified for their professionalism by the Home Office; and that the referral mechanism goes to a dedicated individual within the Home Office. Why is the Home Office so incompetent that it is allowing this system to abuse itself, given the fact that only the Home Office and first responders can refer?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is not the Home Office abusing itself—to use the noble Lord’s phrase. The reality is that it is the large number of claims made by people advised to make claims, often at the last minute, in order to delay removal. When people are referred to the national referral mechanism, they give an account of slavery that then requires investigation. A threshold is applied that means that the allegations are looked into, and the number of people making applications now has given rise to the length of time to determine those claims.
If I may, I will respond to points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Morrow.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, at the end. I can confirm that removing this incentive is compliant with our international obligations under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings—ECAT. Indeed, ECAT envisages that the recovery period should be withheld from potential victims of trafficking on grounds of public order. There is a clear and unprecedented threat to public order through the loss of lives and the pressure on public services that illegal entry to the UK is causing. I again remind noble Lords that the number of small boat crossings has risen from 8,500 in 2020 to over 45,000 last year. We will have a fuller debate in respect of the modern slavery provisions when we reach Clauses 21 to 28 in Committee, but I cannot agree to the noble Lord’s proposition that the foundation of those provisions in subsection (1)(c) be removed from the Bill.
Amendment 20, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, seeks to strike out subsection (1)(d), the effect of which would be to enable any judicial review to put a block on removal until the legal proceedings had been concluded. It seems to me that the key words—and perhaps I could invite the noble Lord to refer to the Bill—are in Clause 4(1)(d), which relates to an application for judicial review in relation to their removal. As my noble friend Lord Horam indicated, such an amendment would again undermine a key feature of the scheme provided for in the Bill. We must stop the endless cycle of late and repeated challenges that frustrate removal under the current law. Of course, it is right to say, too, that there is no general block on non-suspensive judicial review provided for in the Bill.
The Bill provides for two types of claims that would suspend removal, and we will come on to those in due course in Committee. Those provisions provide sufficient remedies to challenge a removal notice and afford the necessary protection to a person suffering serious and irreversible harm were they to be removed to the specified third country. All other legal challenges, whether on ECHR grounds or otherwise, should be non-suspensive. Therefore, Clause 4(1)(d), read with Clause 52, does not oust judicial reviews; those provisions are simply making it clear that any judicial review cannot block removal.
As regards Amendment 21, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I have already indicated that inadmissibility is not a new concept. It has been a feature of the UK asylum system for some time and is already enshrined in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. While I welcome the Constitution Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, I cannot accept its characterisation of the provisions as having significant rule of law implications. What does have significant implications for the rule of law, I suggest, is tens of thousands of people arriving on our shores each year in defiance of immigration laws. These individuals should be claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, and, in these circumstances, it is legitimate to declare any protection claims inadmissible to the UK system.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked what would happen to an asylum or human rights claim that had been declared inadmissible, but where the person had had their factual or suspensive claim accepted. In such a case, the person’s claim would be considered under the existing law. That might include existing inadmissibility provisions. I again remind the Committee that inadmissibility is a long-standing process intended to support the first safe country principle. It is an established part of the international asylum procedures applied across the EU and specifically provided for in UK law, most recently in the strengthened provisions introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. In the circumstances that he accurately sets out, could a declaration of inadmissibility be reversed so that the human rights claim or the protection claim could proceed in the normal way?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The provisions of the Bill in relation to that are a little involved, and I will write to the noble Lord.
Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also deals with inadmissibility. It seeks to provide for asylum and human rights claims from those who have not been removed within six months to continue to be admissible within the UK. In effect, the amendment seeks to perpetuate our current broken asylum system. Again, it seeks to chip away at and put holes into the scheme provided for in the Bill, undermining its coherence and effectiveness. This amendment would regrettably again encourage illegal migrants to use every tactic to frustrate their removal, in the knowledge that after six months their asylum claim would be processed. Moreover, the amendments would unfairly result in individuals who have arrived illegally in the UK being prioritised alongside those who have availed themselves of our safe and legal routes—something which, I suggest to the Committee, is manifestly unfair.
The Bill must send a clear message that if you come to the UK via an illegal route, you will never be able to return to the UK or build a life here. The benefits of settlement should be open only to those who abide by our rules. The whole construct of the scheme is to enable illegal migrants to be removed within days and weeks, not months and years. There is no prospect of someone being left in perpetual limbo, as suggested by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. Amendment 23 is therefore redundant. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, or his proxy, not to press Amendment 20.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister answer the question that I put to him about the disapplication of a national referral mechanism in the case of children, a point which has been raised by the Children’s Commissioner? If he does not have the answer now, can he write to me?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me; I intended to address the noble Lord’s point in relation to that. Obviously, the provisions in Clause 4 make specific reference to the power to remove children, which is contained in Clause 3. That in itself is a safeguard to protect the welfare of children. It operates in a way that promotes the interests of children, I suggest, but I am happy to look further at that point and will take it away.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can I clarify the point that I was making? The Minister alluded to maybe coming back to me. He implied that the problem arose with those who claim, when arriving here under what the Government say is an illegal route, that they are victims of trafficking. The review of that happens only after a referral is made, and there cannot be a self-referral. He seemed to blame the threshold on which that assessment is made as to whether a first responder then submits that person to the NRM. That threshold is the Home Office threshold and the first responders are Home Office- licensed. Why does the Minister think that the Home Office is getting it so wrong?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I disagree. The Home Office is not getting it wrong. As I already set out in my remarks, the numbers of people claiming to have been modern slaves in this scenario indicates that there is extensive abuse. I do not think that the noble Lord could say anything else, looking at the very persuasive statistics of people in detention. I simply do not agree with him on that point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
If we have found that there is no loophole in the system, that is good—so it is just the numbers. Therefore if the number of those who are trafficked goes up, that is the problem. It is not that there is a loophole in the system meaning that a higher proportion are falsely claiming that they are being trafficked. What message does that say around the world? The UK is now blind to the individual merit of a young woman being trafficked if there are many young women being trafficked—that is when we close our doors.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is not the case. Much as we might wish it to be, the simple reality, I am afraid, is that our modern slavery protections are being abused. The measures in the Bill directly address that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If they are being abused, what is the percentage success rate of people who were referred in the last two years?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have those statistics to hand, but I can write—
Lord Scriven (LD)
I can help the Minister. I think it is 82% and 91%, on average. The issue is therefore that, once these cases have been looked at, the Home Office is granting people asylum based on them being part of the modern slavery system.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that there are two stages to the process—a reasonable grounds decision and a conclusive grounds decision—and different statistics. A light touch has hitherto been applied in relation to reasonable grounds. I will need to look into the precise statistics and revert to him on that. I am afraid I do not recognise those statistics immediately, so they will require further research.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I cannot remember the exact numbers, but if the noble Lord looks at it the conclusive grounds is the number which matters, and that is extremely high.
Lord Scriven (LD)
When the Minister replies to me, can he ensure that a copy goes to the Library, please?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to wind up, if I may. Other noble Lords may contain their enthusiasm for dental charges, but I am keen to move on to that important issue. I will not give a long speech, although I was profoundly depressed by the Minister’s response. I will make three points.
First, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is right that we were so proud of the Modern Slavery Act and the credibility that it gave to our country. This Bill undermines it fatally in so many ways. Secondly, the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Scriven, are also surely right. The Minister has essentially said that there is nothing wrong with the robustness of the system. My evidence is that 90% of the competent authorities’ decisions last year were positive decisions, while 91% of conclusive grounds decisions were also positive. This is a system that the Home Office itself oversees. It seems that the cases coming before it are proven to be positive. I do not see how the Minister can possibly then say that there is evidence that the system is open to abuse. To say that it is a question of numbers wholly undermines the Home Office’s case for this.
The third point is that, in passing this Bill unamended, we are strengthening the hands of the trafficking networks. As has been pointed out a number of times, traffickers keep people under control with threats that they will not receive help if they reach out to the authorities. That is what this Bill is doing. It is saying that the UK Government will not give help to desperate people. To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, about our role as an advising Chamber, I know what we should do with this clause and this Bill.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It has been a profoundly interesting and saddening debate, and I am sure we will come back to it on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 5, line 38.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
(c) any other application to a court or tribunal which is required by an enactment to be determined by applying the principles that would be applied by a court on an application within paragraph (a) or (b).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition in the Bill of “application for judicial review” to cover in particular an application to the judicial review jurisdiction of the Upper Tribunal or the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 5, line 38.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 24; page 7, line 27; page 7, line 43; page 8, line 5; and page 8, line 28 supplement references in Clause 5 to a person who is (or is not) a national of a country listed in section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (inserted by Clause 57) with references to a person who has (or has not) obtained a passport or other document of identity in such a country.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 5th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (5 Jun 2023)
Baroness Hamwee
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a subjective power of the Secretary of State to determine that there are “exceptional circumstances” to prevent a removal.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I also have various other amendments in this group. I feel I should speak very slowly in the hope that those who have the other amendments in this group arrive in time to introduce them.
Amendment 30 relates to Clause 5, which is one of the removal provisions. A number of noble and learned Lords, all learned in the sense that one generally understands it—I can see one of them in her place—have put a good deal of work into the other amendments in this group. I do not want to pre-empt what they and my noble friend Lord Paddick will say, so I will leave that support unspoken.
Clause 5(4)(b) places the Secretary of State above the law and above the courts, because the first hurdle to making a protection or a human rights claim is that
“the Secretary of State considers there are exceptional circumstances”
preventing removal to a particular country. This amendment is intended to probe what is meant by “exceptional circumstances”. I hope the Minister can expand on this. We have examples in subsection (5) which are about particular countries and not individuals. I suspect that they may include situations which are the subject of many other amendments in this group, and if so we should spell that out and not make it a matter of discretion. I am questioning the Secretary of State’s discretion, as I understand it—reasoned discretion, one hopes—or consideration that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent removal to a particular country.
It was only when I was preparing for today that I paused on the word “prevent”. Does it really mean preventing removal, which to my mind conjures up pictures of protestors preventing take-off of a plane carrying a particular individual? Or does it mean that removal is inappropriate or risky because of the reception—in the broadest sense—at the other end; or that there are circumstances which mean that removal would be unsafe? If it is about treatment at the other end, I am not sure that “prevent” is the right term.
I very much support the amendments—which we will hear about in a moment— extending the list of countries and parts of countries which are dangerous to return people to.
My amendments are directed at, and opposing, the notion that an individual can be safe in a part of a country if he is not safe in another part of the same country. Not every country is in a tidy unity, but where there are laws, they tend to apply overall. Where there are prejudices in a country, those who may be a threat to an individual will be free to travel between different parts of the country. Those are Amendments 52A to 52D, Amendment 52G and Amendment 53A.
Amendments 52B and 52D challenge the proposition in Clause 6(1) of removal if “in general” there is no serious risk of persecution or that removal will not “in general” contravene obligations under the human rights convention. What is meant by “in general”? I do not understand the term in this context. It is not fair to call it a lazy term, because I appreciate the vast amount of work that goes into drafting any Bill—however much one dislikes it—but it is not a very imaginative way to describe a situation. If you cannot give an example, you should not be trying to use generalised terminology. This seems to be another demonstration of the Government clutching at anything they can to deny obligations to asylum seekers. I beg to move Amendment 30.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my slightly late arrival in the first minute of this debate. I rise because I am the signatory of a number of amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, and because I have some amendments in my own name: Amendments 33A, 34 and 35.
The aim of all these amendments is to ensure that something happens which I feel should not cause any differences with the Government. I think it may be a matter of interpretation or a matter of adding a few words to the Bill. Principally, it relates to the treatment in third countries of people who fall within the LGBTQ group. Section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides that a state is a safe third state in relation to a claimant if
“the claimant’s life and liberty are not threatened in that State by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.
I focus on the words
“member of a particular social group”.
I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, will acknowledge that the definition of a “particular social group” has been to the courts. Indeed, government guidance has been issued which accepts that being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, subject to the facts being established—obviously, there is a consideration of the facts in every case—entitles that person to protection from Section 80B, as I quoted. The purpose of these amendments, therefore, is to ensure that people who are seeking asylum because they are a member of that social group—or another definable social group—do not lose the full protection of the law by reason of the content of Schedule 1 to this Bill, and the provisions of Clause 5 in particular.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise mainly to introduce Amendment 52F, in my name, but before doing that I would like to endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Carlile has just said. We should recognise that there are countries that people should not be sent to, where convention rights would not then apply to the subsequent refoulement. I also agree with the opening remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in moving her amendment. Again, I endorse those and associate myself with those remarks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was one of those who attended a meeting that I organised here before Second Reading of the Bill, which the Salvation Army and a number of other stakeholders attended; the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was also present. The point about the Salvation Army is particularly relevant because, of course, it is one of the stakeholders that works for the Home Office in dealing with many of the people whom we are discussing in the context of this Bill. Arising out of that discussion, I thought it would be good to table amendments along these lines. In fact, there are others elsewhere in group 19 and I will come back to that in a moment.
In this group—group 4—Amendment 52F would ensure that there is consultation with relevant stakeholders in the country to ensure compliance with international obligations and that detailed assessments are made in respect of protection and support. I remain concerned that the Bill denies access to protections, safety and support for those seeking refuge and victims of modern slavery. I touched on that in previous groups that we debated earlier this afternoon.
In doing so, far from breaking the business model of people smuggling—as the Government repeatedly state—and deterring illegal entry into the UK, I think the Bill merely enhances the ability of people smugglers and people traffickers to operate with impunity. Currently, there has been very little assessment of the implications of the Bill for those seeking refuge and victims of modern slavery, including compliance with international legal instruments, as well as the financial implications if implemented and the effect on the wider modern slavery strategy.
I know the House is waiting with anticipation for the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which will meet again tomorrow to, I hope, come to a final conclusion about the report it has had to rush—pell-mell, one might say—because of the pace at which the Bill has been taken through both Houses of Parliament. Nevertheless, that report—I hope it will be unanimous but, if not, it will be a majority report—will be available to your Lordships for further consideration in Committee and on Report.
The Bill could have devastating effects on the rights of survivors of modern slavery. Furthermore, it is clear that my concern is shared right across party divides. We have seen that in the context of the debates in another place and the speeches made by people such as Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Theresa May that have been quoted in our earlier debates, but also from the survivors of modern slavery themselves. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has had evidence from people who have been victims. I personally found it very moving to hear some of their own accounts. We have also heard from former law enforcement officials, lawyers and people who have dealt with these issues over very many years.
Rather than repeating what has already been said, I will speak specifically to Amendment 52F, which would ensure that there is consultation with relevant stakeholders in the country to ensure compliance with our international obligations and that detailed assessments are made in respect of protection and support. As I have said, the amendment sits alongside Amendments 85C and 92B, which are also tabled in my name but do not come until much later, in group 19. They would put on the face of the Bill an obligation for the Government to carry out due diligence to ensure the safety of those who are removed from the UK to other territories and countries. Indeed, we will come on to that question in a later group of amendments.
These amendments have been drafted with survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking in mind, as they too will be subject to removal from the UK if they have been deemed to enter the country irregularly. We know from experience the time it can take for a survivor to feel safe and begin their journey of recovery. We all know how heightened vulnerabilities need to be protected against trauma and the kinds of experiences people have had to endure, which have been referred to in some of our earlier debates. I cited one example earlier, reported to me by the Children’s Commissioner—I am still shocked by the story of a young boy from Iran who watched his parents being executed. It took him a year to get to the safety of this country, and the idea that he could be returned to who knows where, who knows when, is unconscionable as far as I and probably most Members of the Committee are concerned. That is why we have to think very carefully about the protections we place in the legislation. We also know that removal of survivors to another country against their will—or the fear that they might be repatriated—can exacerbate their vulnerabilities, delay or prevent that recovery process and unfortunately lead to the individual being re-exploited or re-trafficked, doing nothing to break the wicked cycle of exploitation.
If the Government insist on pushing forward with these plans of removing trafficking and modern slavery survivors from the UK, they must do so with the utmost diligence and transparency. That is why Amendment 52F would require the Government to undertake comprehensive assessments, including detailed consultation with relevant safeguarding and support organisations in the country or territory to which the survivor may be removed. It would also require the Government to assess the human rights situation of the relevant country, the protection and support available to potential and identified victims, the risks of further harm by exploitation and trafficking, and the risk of direct and indirect refoulement in that country.
The amendment would also require the Government to confirm whether the duty in Clause 2 and the powers in Clause 3 would not contravene both national and international legal instruments, including but not limited to: the Equality Act, the European convention against trafficking—which I referred to in an earlier group of amendments—the refugee convention, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we discussed at length in an earlier group.
Many of us in this House and in the other place will continue to work to ensure and enshrine the rights of survivors of modern slavery. Amendment 52F, alongside Amendments 85C and 92B when we get to them, are there to ensure some level of transparency and due diligence, which have so far been lacking within this process. The removal of survivors from protection in this country risks fuelling the cycle of exploitation that consumes lives and spits out profits for ruthless criminals. For this reason these amendments have been tabled, to ensure that the bare minimum is done to ensure the safety of those who are at risk of further harm of traffickers.
In summary, I will make four points. First, the amendment is primarily about ensuring that if there is intention to remove people to specific countries, there is a detailed understanding of both the risks and legislation, policy and practical resources in-country to meet the needs of those seeking refuge and victims of modern slavery.
Secondly, the amendment would require an assessment of the levels of protection and support, including risks of trafficking and retrafficking and wider direct and indirect non-refoulement.
Thirdly, detailed consultation with national and international stakeholders will mean greater transparency for the implementation of this legislation and make sure that it is put into place with appropriate structures around due diligence and accountability given the significant implications for those seeking refuge and victims of modern slavery.
Lastly, it would necessitate the Government making clear how the duty in Clause 2 and the powers in Clause 3 do not contravene national or international legal instruments in the implementation of the Bill should it become law, which includes those various international conventions which I referred to earlier. The failure to be able to declare the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights speaks to the remarks made earlier on today by my noble friend Lord Hannay about the reputational loss there will be to this country if we are seen to be derelict in our upholding of conventions and treaties which have served us so well in the past.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I agree with every single word he said in respect of protections and securities for the most vulnerable.
I have added my name to the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I will not repeat the excellent intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but I refer the Committee to the contribution by the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Murray—on day one of Committee, when he categorically rejected my explicit reference to LGBTQ as a protection because he said, quite rightly, that it is covered within the definition of a social group. Therefore I am sure—or rather I hope—that the Government will have absolutely no problem with our intention within the amendments, removing countries or adding corrections for definitions.
I want to look in particular at Amendment 50 in relation to Rwanda. We do not believe it is appropriate to include Rwanda when there are legal proceedings currently in the Court of Appeal as to the legality of the removal arrangements, otherwise the Government may contend that, whatever the courts in the UK or the European Court of Human Rights may say, Parliament has by this Act approved the removal arrangements in respect of Rwanda, and that trumps any court decision under our constitution.
I also want to refer to Amendment 43A in relation to Hungary and Amendment 49A in relation to Poland—both members of the European Union, as your Lordships know. We believe it is not appropriate to include these countries, because both Hungary and Poland are subject to proceedings under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. Such proceedings apply where the appropriate majority of the European Parliament or the Commission and the council
“may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2”
of the Treaty on European Union, which provides that 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 minorities. I do not have to remind your Lordships that there are, and have been for many years, deep concerns within both Hungary and Poland about the discrimination faced by LGBTQ people and the ongoing threats to their safety.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 53 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. While I support everything said so far, I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to this amendment in particular and its constitutional importance, given the constitutional conceit of this whole Bill.
If I have said it before, I hope the Committee will forgive me: the conceit of this Bill is for the Secretary of State, via primary legislation, to tie her own hands and give herself a duty to do something that we believe to be unlawful. The reason for tying her own hands is to avoid the interference of the courts. That is, in essence, the conceit at the heart of the Bill. It goes a little further. The Home Secretary is tying her hands with a duty to remove people to a list of countries, but it is a list that she may add to. Now we are very permissive and the hands have become untied in a fairly fluid way when it comes to adding further countries to this list of supposedly safe countries in Schedule 1.
The contents of Schedule 1 therefore become quite important, hence the various submissions that are being made and the various amendments that are being tabled in Committee about this country or that country, not just as they are at this moment but, in a very difficult world in flux, regarding what may or may not happen in them in the future. The present Home Secretary, and Home Secretaries of whatever stripe of Government in the future, will have this duty to remove people to countries on a list which they may add to by secondary legislation. Therefore, the factors that they must consider as Home Secretary when adding to that list are incredibly important. I hope that the Committee agrees.
The factors for deciding whether a country is safe to add to the list are in Clause 6, particularly Clause 6(4), for those who can still pick up a Bill at this time of night:
“In deciding whether the statements in subsection (1)(a) and (b) are true … the Secretary of State … must have regard to all the circumstances of the country”.
Well, of course. That is a bit of a non-protection, because we would hope so, would we not? Secondly, the Secretary of State
“must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations)”.
With respect, that is not enough. Therefore, it is worth being explicit about what has been done in Amendment 53, tabled by the noble learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and supported ably by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, which I support. They have beefed up that second limb, so that it is not just having regard to appropriate information. What does “appropriate information” mean—appropriate information as determined by the Secretary of State in this beautifully circular process? Instead, the Secretary of State must
“apply relevant decisions of courts and tribunals operating in the United Kingdom”.
There is a radical suggestion. The Secretary of State must have regard for the law and apply the law of the United Kingdom—the case law of our courts in this country—about the safety or otherwise of these countries that might otherwise be added to the list of the countries to which the Secretary of State will have a duty to remove people.
I almost choke on my words that this has to be put in law, but we are in a place of such disregard for our domestic courts. Therefore, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, were quite right to insist at the very least that this should be clear in the legislation before a future Secretary of State can add further to this schedule of countries to which people must be removed by current and future Secretaries of State.
Perhaps more controversially—not for the Minister currently sitting opposite but to others, although I hope not—in addition to applying the law of this United Kingdom, as has become our custom as good members of the Council of Europe and under the Human Rights Act, the Secretary of State, before adding countries to this list, must
“have regard to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”,
so please do not add further countries to this duty to remove unless you have applied the law of this land and had regard to the European Court of Human Rights. The Minister is a distinguished former judge. He is unique in this Committee and on the Benches opposite as an international lawyer, as opposed to being just any old lawyer, like me. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, I hope that he will see the good sense in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this particular group of amendments but, seeing that the two Front Benchers have agreed we are going to stay until 10.40 pm, and as I believe we should not be rushing through groups, I will add my bit to scrutinising the Government’s thinking on these particular amendments.
I have done a lot of work with groups in the UK who work with individuals who have sought asylum because of their sexuality, sexual orientation or gender identity. It is not a straightforward assumption that people come here and the first thing they do is claim asylum on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. They have lived in countries where to trust the authorities with personal information about your sexual orientation or gender identity would mean either jail, persecution, discrimination or in some cases death.
So when a lot of people come here who are claiming asylum or wish to claim asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity, they tend not to tell the authorities to start with. They tend to keep it private and very much to themselves. It is through a process of working with a number of non-government organisations and gaining trust during the interview process for asylum that, maybe on the fourth, fifth or sixth intervention with an official in the UK, they may start to open up. That is when many individuals who are claiming asylum as part of the LGBTQ+ community start to open up. They are secretive and they do not trust authority to start with.
This Bill gives them absolutely no way to explain why they are claiming asylum before the Government, under this Bill, make a decision that they could go to a country where they are in as much or more danger as in the country they have just come from in terms of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I am not clear how the Government come to the view that certain people, particularly gay males, transgender people, or people who are struggling with gender identity issues, are going to be able to go to a country of safe haven under the provisions of this Bill. If somebody is fleeing a country because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, they will maybe go to Gambia or Ghana or Jamaica. One only has to look at the Government’s own website to see travel advice that makes it very clear that these are not countries that you as an LGBT person should go to and be open, even if you are a tourist. The words that come out are “conservative” and “reserved”: “attacks” occasionally appear. So I just wonder how the Government have come up with this schedule, particularly with the process that a lot of individuals go through in terms of claiming asylum for sexual orientation or gender identity, knowing that it tends not to be something that is divulged instantly on the first interview, and then saying that people can go to countries, as I have suggested, and be safe. How would they know they are not sending somebody to a country where they are not safe?
I will move on slightly, because I was quite intrigued by the Government’s website on travel advice. With quite a lot of these countries, the Government’s own advice is that some of them are quite violent, with “express kidnappings” referred to in certain countries. If noble Lords do not know what an express kidnappings is, because I did not, it is literally that somebody will come, be able to determine that you are not from that country, assume that you are a foreign national, kidnap you instantly off the street, and then determine who your relatives are and where you have come from, and use you as a potential source of income, including potentially injuring you and in some cases killing you. On the Government’s website, with some of the countries on this Schedule 1, express kidnappings are there.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I apologise that I was unable to be present on day one of Committee and I arrived today rather later than I had planned, so was unable to speak earlier. However, I am grateful to my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry for so doing.
In regard to this group, it is particularly Amendments 52A onwards for which I should like to express my support, although I fully support all that has been said around the individual countries and the issue around LGBTQ+ rights. However, there is real concern around naming a part of a country or territory as safe when much of the country might not be. So I fully support Amendment 52A on that basis.
In addition, I support Amendments 52E, 52F and 53, which are not just thinking about the situation in current countries but are looking to the future and how decisions are made in the longer term. It will be vital that we take seriously examining the situations in specific countries as and when they arise. We recognise that countries change and might become safe when they are currently unsafe. Equally, countries that are currently deemed safe may become unsafe. We need this kind of provision and I suggest that on Report we come back with a combination that pulls together all the safeties from those amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I wish to ask a question of the Minister in regard to Amendment 43, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Ghana. It relates to the points made my noble friend Lord Scriven.
The Home Office currently proposes that we move away from looking at countries on a case-by-case basis to determine which are safe. However, under the current Immigration Rules, the Government use the country policy and information note as the basis that officers will be able to use when they are considering a case.
The country policy and information note on Ghana regarding sexual orientation, gender, identity and expression, published in May 2022, states that of course each case will be considered on its own merits. That is obvious because that is what we are moving to. However, paragraph 2.4.13 states:
“In general, L, G and B persons are likely to be subject to treatment from the state that by its nature and frequency amounts to persecution”.
So, the Minister’s department for Ghana is saying that the state persecutes L, G and B people in general terms—but for men it is a safe country. So someone fleeing Uganda because of persecution because of their sexual orientation and arriving by an illegal route can now be deported to Ghana, where that very same person is now going to be vulnerable to, as the Government say, treatment from the state that by its nature and frequency amounts to persecution. I just want to ask the Minister why.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group, including the probing amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It is quite clear from all sides of the Committee that just listing countries as being safe is not sufficient. The Government have already acknowledged that some countries are not safe to remove women to, for example. Therefore the principle is established that a country may be considered sort of generally safe, but not safe for particular individuals, whether because of their gender or sexual diversity. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, introduced amendments aimed at that. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would ensure that victims of trafficking and modern slavery are not removed to a country where they would not be safe. As both my noble friends said, when you contrast the list of countries in Schedule 1 with the Government’s advice to travellers, for example, there is clear inconsistency between the two, or at least a case for the Government to answer in terms of using the countries in Schedule 1 as a blanket list rather than looking into the specific problems or dangers faced by people who belong to different social groups.
The other concern I have is, if people who arrive by means of what the Home Office calls irregular routes are not to have their asylum claims considered at all, how will the Government know whether the individual concerned is, for example, gay or a lesbian and therefore will be put in danger if they are removed to a country that clearly persecutes people from those groups? If there is going to be no consideration of the merits of an individual’s claim, how can the Government be certain that the person is going to be safe if they are removed to one of these countries?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is another important group of amendments and we support all of them. I remind noble Lords of the importance of this. Since the Bill assumes that everybody arriving irregularly will be detained and automatically removed, where they are going to be removed to becomes important to us all, and for us to have some consideration about the criteria which the Government will use is of particular importance. Can the Minister confirm that deterrence does not trump human rights with respect to removals? That was the implication of what his noble friend Lord Murray said earlier—that deterrence is everything and something that has to be achieved irrespective of any other consequence.
Since the Government always say that they are on the side of the British people, let me be controversial for a moment. With regard to the issues that we have been discussing in this group of amendments, I do not believe that the British people believe that deterrence should trump human rights. Let us make this real. I have looked at this, as other Members have done, in relation to various LGBTQ rights in countries that the Government say will be safe to send failed asylum seekers to through the Bill. Let us take the case of Nigeria; as my noble friend Lord Cashman has said, you can be flogged for being gay there. In Malawi, it is up to 14 years’ imprisonment with or without corporal punishment. In Liberia, it is a maximum of three years in prison.
Can the Minister tell us, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, whether a failed asylum seeker who is gay would be removed to those countries? In the end, that goes to the essence of what we are talking about. I want to know, and the British public and this Chamber want to know: will such an individual—or anyone in circumstances detailed in the helpful amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—be deported, or not? I do not think they should be deported in those circumstances. I do not see how those countries can be included in Schedule 1; I do not understand that at all. I do not believe that the Minister would want anyone —a female asylum seeker, for example, who has failed according to the terms of the Bill—to be returned to a country where they would be persecuted. Would such a country be included in Schedule 1? Rather than these general terms, let us see the specifics of what would happen.
Some noble Lords who have been Members of the other place will know that people will often say in general terms, “It’s an outrage”, or that “It’s about time those people were sent back” or “dealt with”. Then, the individual case—the individual family, the individual asylum seeker, the individual gay person—comes up and that very same community launches a campaign to stop them being deported. You can see it happening up and down the country because people are genuinely decent. When the human consequences of a piece of legislation are made clear, that general enthusiasm and support dissipates because they understand its consequences.
When the Minister answers the various questions of noble Lords, I want him to answer the specifics about an individual gay person who has failed as an asylum seeker under the terms of the Bill. Will they be returned to the sorts of countries and the sorts of persecution that other noble Lords and I have outlined?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have put forward amendments in this group and contributed to this debate. The Government completely understand the sincerity and thought that has gone into these amendments and we are grateful for those observations but, for the reasons that I hope I will be able to explain, the Government do not feel that we should accept the amendments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I wish to probe a little more what the Minister said. I understand his points about certain parts of countries. As I understand it, the Government accept that, in certain parts of countries, the risk to the individual will be such that that person should not be returned or sent to them if they are part of what could otherwise be a safe country. What is our Government’s mechanism to secure a guarantee from that country’s Government that that person would not then be sent to that region?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I suppose that the direct answer is that one would have to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the country concerned. I agree that that may not be enough, and the situation may well be such that it is not appropriate to designate a part of the country. All I am saying is that one should have this power; I am not necessarily saying the circumstances in which one should exercise it. It would still be open to an individual, in a suspensive claim, to say, “I’m still at risk because I might be transferred to the part of the country where it would be too dangerous for me to be sent”. That would be part of the analysis that the tribunal seized of the case would have to make.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I appreciate that the Minister said that, therefore, a negotiation may have to be done on not sending someone to part of a country. How would the British Government and the Home Office then monitor that to ensure that the host country kept to the agreement and that people were not moved to the part of the country that was deemed unsafe?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government would have to monitor it as best one could, and, if it turns out that an arrangement is not satisfactory, it probably may not be a good idea to designate that part of the country as safe in the first place. All I am saying is let us not deprive ourselves of the opportunity to have this flexibility. We can work it out as we go forward.
What I should come to now are Amendments 35, 36, 41 to 52 and 54 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so ably developed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and spoken to by others. In essence, they seek to amend either Clause 5 or the references to various countries listed in the schedule on the basis that certain individuals would have a well-founded fear of persecution and that we should therefore now declare in statute which these countries are and on what basis people should not be sent back to them. In general terms, the Government’s view is that it is not desirable to enshrine in statute descriptions of which countries are safe or not, or of particular groups of individuals or those with protected characteristics. The route—
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will finish my train of thought and then give way. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly asked about the route for the protection of the individual. If there is a removal notice to a country in question, and if they have a well-founded fear of persecution and would be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to that country, they have a right to make a suspensive claim—a claim of suspensive harm—and that claim is then appealed to the Upper Tribunal. That is their individual protection in which their individual circumstances are closely considered, including in a judicial process. That is the essential protection.
I also clarify that, if you read the Bill with care, you will see that people cannot be sent back to a country unless we are satisfied that the country is prepared to accept them. In practical terms, that will include Rwanda at the moment and other countries in the future, with which we might be able to form immigration partnerships. However, that is a precondition that does not necessarily apply to many of the countries listed in the schedule.
Lord Scriven (LD)
First, following on from what the Minister said at the beginning of the answer he has just given, when he said that the Government do not feel that it is appropriate to list characteristics of individuals in the Bill, I ask him: why in Schedule 1 are there, on eight occasions, a description of an individual in the list of countries for men only? They are deemed not safe for women; therefore, the Government have described certain groups of individuals by a characteristic.
Secondly, and very importantly, the point I raised—which the Minister may be coming to, based on his last answer—was that most people who claim asylum on LGBT, sexual orientation or gender identity grounds tend not to start with that. Therefore, it would be completely missed if there were not people supporting them to be able to go through a normal process. In some cases, it takes five or six attempts before that person will claim asylum on their own characteristic, because they do not trust authority, and so that trust has to be built.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the first part of the question asked by the noble Lord, it is true that there are certain countries designated for men only, and so forth, in the existing schedule. The Government do not consider that that is an appropriate precedent to extend at this stage. Circumstances change and countries change, so it is much better to deal with this on an individual basis. It is probably the case, one would have thought as a matter of common sense, that, if it arises, the Government’s travel advice to particular countries, to raise one particular point, is likely to be a highly material fact, when they come to consider the risk of serious and irreversible harm.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the answer he gave to a point I raised earlier. I ask him whether, before Report, he will talk to some of those organisations which have been the secondary referrals for people who have tried to make claims that they would be in danger in unspecified other countries. They face the extreme inconsistency of quality legal advice in different parts of the country, and they often obtain quality legal advice only when some well-meaning social worker or other person refers them to the Children’s Society or some other organisation, which has a proper team of lawyers, who are able to give informed advice. Around the country, where the people we are talking about tend to be dispersed, the knowledge of this part of the law is thin.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are always prepared to talk to anybody who would like to put forward various ideas. We will come to the question of legal advice and legal protections and procedures in a later group, where I will be very happy to elaborate on the Government’s plans in that respect.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The judge in an Upper Tribunal would no doubt be trying to determine the will of Parliament in deciding the issues before us. In what circumstances do the Minister or the Government believe a judge would send a gay individual going to the Upper Tribunal as the result of a suspensive claim back to Nigeria or a similar country?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am not sure I completely understood the question. It may well be that in practice there will be various countries to which people with certain characteristics will never be sent because it is well known either at the level of the case worker and the Home Office or at the level of the judiciary that such a claim would give rise to a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let me try again for the Minister. It is often said in court that judges were uncertain as to the intention of Parliament and it was not clear in the legislation what Parliament actually meant and therefore there was ambiguity. For the sake of avoiding any ambiguity, let us say that a suspensive claim goes to the Upper Tribunal, where the judge will determine whether that claim is right and whether an individual should be sent back to a particular country. So that the judge in the Upper Tribunal is not in danger of misreading the will of Parliament, I do not think that Parliament would want a gay individual who had failed because of the terms of the Illegal Migration Bill to be sent back to a country such as Nigeria which flogs gay men. I am asking the Minister of the Crown to say what the Government’s attitude is towards gay men in those circumstances, so that a judge in an Upper Tribunal will know what the intention of Parliament was. I hope that was clear enough for the Minister.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s position is that no one should be sent back if to do so would lead them to face
“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”.
If that is the position in relation to gay men in Nigeria, there should be no difficulty in them satisfying those conditions.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am sorry to trouble the Minister again, but I have been listening to this with great interest and have two questions. First, is the Minister able to say any country outside Europe where it would be safe to send a gay man or indeed woman back? Secondly, if there are any countries, would it be possible for the Government to put those on their website?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It will remain a question of fact in each case and the examples of relevant harm are set out in Clause 38(4), which refers to
“death … persecution … torture … inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
and where onward removal would raise a risk of
“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of … harm”.
If that in practice amounts to a situation in which you could not send a gay person back to that country, that would be a decision for the tribunal.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful to the Minister for responding with his characteristic courtesy and patience. I think I can help him, because I think the problem here arises from the Government own cake-eating, if I can put it like that. The general proposition in the Bill is that we will now decide on a blanket basis that people are to be removed, regardless of their circumstances, because of the means of their arrival, not because of the circumstances of their past and their persecution. Fair enough; that is the thinking behind the Bill. Then the Government say, “Here is the schedule of safe countries”, again on a blanket basis. Then the Government say, “But only for men”—so they have already adopted the approach that there are some countries that are safe for men but not for women. But then when my noble friends and other noble Lords in the Committee say, “But gay people are a vulnerable group in many parts of the world, just as women are”, the Minister is, I think, forced into the Government’s position of saying, “But women are not a precedent”.
That logic is not standing up to scrutiny, in this Committee at least, so I hope that, after Committee and before Report, the Minister might just consider that issue of gay people, or LGBT+ people, in particular. We all know, in this Committee, that just as there are some countries that may be safe for men but not women, there are many countries that are not safe for queer people either. Rather than playing on this sticky wicket, which he, with his characteristic grace, handles with great aplomb, perhaps before Report, the Government could think again.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government will of course consider that, as we try to consider everything that is said in this House, before Report. I simply reiterate that under Clause 5(3)(d), it still has to be
“a country or territory to which there is reason to believe P will be admitted”—
and that is probably not very likely to be satisfied in the particular countries we are talking about, such as Ghana, for example. Having responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Government will of course consider the position.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
On that very point, what is the point of having Ghana in that schedule? There is no agreement with Ghana at all, so how do the Government know that Ghana would be unlikely to accept someone who is not admissible under the UK scheme? The UK will presumably not necessarily divulge that that person is gay.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I sought to explain earlier that Schedule 1 is an amalgam of all the existing schedules that exist. Ghana was already on a list of countries to which people could be sent, and the present practice is not to send people back to places where they are at serious risk. That practice will continue under this Act when you make a suspensive harm application. It is a historical situation, but it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As I said to the noble Baroness a moment ago, the Government will reflect on what has been said in this debate.
That brings me to deal specifically with the question of Rwanda and the fact that there are currently proceedings pending in relation to Rwanda, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, pointed out. So far, the High Court has upheld the position on Rwanda: we will see what the Court of Appeal judgment says. If the case goes further, it will be a matter for judicial decision and we will see how that works out, but we will not take Rwanda out at this stage, while the matter is still pending. I think that is also the answer, if I may say so, in relation to Amendments 43A and 49A on Hungary and Poland. These are ongoing proceedings: let us see what the outcome is and then it can be properly determined whether Poland and Hungary are countries that should remain on the list. That is not clear yet and it depends on the outcome of those pending proceedings.
I think that I am nearly through, except for the very important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, as to whether we should beef up Clause 6(4)(b), which at the moment places certain requirements on the Secretary of State, in deciding on possible new countries and territories. The thrust of the amendment suggested by the noble Lord and supported by others is that effectively there should be a more detailed list of conventions and other international instruments to which the Government should have regard, with a specific obligation of consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others wanted in particular to enshrine the obligation to follow the decisions of domestic courts and the Human Rights Act.
The Government’s position on this—and of course, as with other things, we will reflect on it—is that these are effectively de facto covered in the existing Clause 6(4)(a) and (b). They provide that the Secretary of State must—it is a positive duty—
“have regard to all the circumstances of the country”
and
“must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations)”.
That, in the Government’s view, necessarily requires the Secretary of State to have regard to case law, whether it is domestic or European; to have regard to international conventions and obligations; and to have regard to what international organisations say—and they are not exactly bashful when coming forward in this kind of area. The Secretary of State would be seriously at risk of being found to have acted irrationally or found not to have taken into account relevant considerations, if there was a major international organisation, a major convention or a major decision that had somehow been overlooked. So the combination of the normal duties of rationality and duty to take into account all relevant considerations, plus the actual wording of Clause 6(4), in the Government’s present view, covers the situation adequately.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. The hour is late, and I promise not to intervene again on his remarks. Before we get to group 19, which is also linked to this amendment, or indeed before we get to Report, could the Minister arrange for his officials or perhaps for himself or his noble friend to meet the Salvation Army and the other providers and stakeholders to which I referred in my remarks? It was they who raised these concerns—and, given that they have a contract with the Home Office, they are in a pretty good position to know the territory.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My noble friend Lord Murray tells me that that is already in train—or, certainly, there is no objection from the Government’s point of view.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his patience and graciousness. Given the amendments that I raised, which I co-signed with others, particularly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and given the notion that deterrent trumps all, I am still not reassured that a person would not be returned to somewhere like Uganda, where you face 14 years’ imprisonment or the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”. I am not reassured that a person will not be sent to those countries if they are at serious risk. Historically—and I shall close on this intervention—in the Home Office, people have been told that they will be returned to countries where they should not make their sexual orientation or gender identity known. I do not want us to return to those days.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
In taking full account of what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just said, which was obviously a powerful comment, I simply reiterate, as I have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the Government will consider the content of this debate. However, I reiterate first of all that this is a judicial and not a Home Office decision, and that those concerned will need to explain to the tribunal why they do not want to be sent back to these countries.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The equality impact assessment that the Government have done on this talks particularly about sexual orientation. The very point that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others have made is that people will be returned. The Government more or less say that that will be the case unless something happens:
“Where individuals are from a country where their sexual orientation is criminalised, and their exploitation is linked to their sexual orientation, they may require additional support in order to trust and engage with law enforcement”.
That is the Government’s own equality impact assessment. Where in the Bill is that extra support in place? I cannot see it anywhere in the Bill to ensure that discrimination does not take place against people from the LGBT community. Therefore, subsequently, if this support is not put in place, people from the LGBT community will be sent to places where they are unsafe due to local LGBT laws.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, at this stage I do not think I can elaborate beyond the answers I have already given. This is going to be a matter for the judicial process—through the appeal process, the legal advice and the legal representation that these people have. If they can show serious and irreversible harm, then they will not be sent to these places.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care with which he has responded to these amendments. I do not know whether I am right, and I do not want to embarrass him, but I sensed a slight feeling of discomfort with the issues we are having to address. I applaud him for that.
It seems to me that noble Lords have been both practical and principled in this debate. I agree with the analysis about half an hour ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, of the position, but the practicality has been by testing the reality of different circumstances. It was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said that, when faced with the situation of somebody one knows well being in this precarious position, it all looks very different. I agree; it is rather similar to feelings about people who come from other cultures. We are suspicious of them—“But not So-and-so—no, she is fine”.
On Amendment 30, I will read the report of what the Minister has said. I was not challenging most of subsection (4). It was simply the discretion, and I take what has been said about the Secretary of State having to act reasonably and so on. Subsection (5), however, says that “exceptional circumstances include”. That, to me, raises questions about what might not be included on the face of the Bill.
The Minister is quite right that I was trying to read “prevent” as someone being put at risk, and I think the Bill should say so because a person is prevented from being removed only if, in his individual case, he falls within the exceptions. That is not the natural understanding of the term. I have to say that I remain very concerned about the issue of a part of a country. A conflict in one part of a country can spread very fast, and can the risk to an individual—if he is persona non grata in one part of the country, that can become known in another part of the country very easily—and we are talking about individuals.
I am still a bit confused about “in general”. I understand that the lists we have are an amalgam of previous lists. The Minister defends the position—I think I am right in saying—by referring to procedures that can be used to challenge a decision. We are going to get to some more of this later in the Bill, but noble Lords have already shown their concern about the very narrow circumstances in which challenges—if I can use the term broadly—can be made.
A couple of things have come up in the Minister’s response that have made me think again about these. I would have mentioned some in any event, but I sure that noble Lords will understand that I am, at this moment, speaking a little bit slowly for reasons of time. If there is to be a negotiation about a home country and whether to have a negotiation with that country, does that actually raise the risk of drawing the individual to the attention of the authorities in that country and putting that person in greater jeopardy than he may have been?
The notion of acceptance by the receiving country has also been raised. I do not know whether the Minister can answer this tonight; if he can take a couple of minutes to do so, it would be helpful. If the UK and other countries are going to say, “Will you accept this individual?”, does that not, again, put that individual in jeopardy, because the reason for his having sought asylum in the UK will become known? We are in Committee, so the Minister is free to reply if he can help at this point.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I expect that I am being asked to play a sort of night watchman role in continuing the batting until stumps are drawn. As far as I know, it is not the case that the Government intend to engage in negotiations in relation to particular individuals. The Government’s general policy is to engage in discussions with particular countries about reciprocal arrangements and migration partnerships. There are various reports of other countries that are currently engaged in discussions.
Subject to correction—I am sure my noble friend Lord Murray will put me right—I think it is very likely to be the case that a lot of what we have discussed tonight in relation to Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda is simply not going to arise. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others are sceptical about that and it may be that the Government need to provide some further reassurance to satisfy noble Lords. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for noticing the time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. That has raised further issues in my mind about what information may be given—not necessarily about an individual—to a receiving country, whether the questions may be asked and how the UK responds.
I think stumps probably can be drawn, though it is not in my gift to say so. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 30.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 17.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 17.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 7, line 17.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (6 Jun 2023)
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I propose that Clause 5, Schedule 1 and Clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on this. Clause 5 relates to the removal of a person, as the Minister said on Monday, “swiftly” after they arrive in the UK or, as he put it, “shortly” after their 18th birthday. But Clause 5 actually says
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”.
Without the regulatory impact assessment, we in Parliament cannot judge what is a “reasonably practicable” period. What we do know—the Ministers know this all too well because they are lawyers—is that case law determines that
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”
cannot be considered as “as soon as possible” or “as soon as feasible”, although the Minister wanted us to think that it does. I guess the Bill would be a deterrent if one assumed that no lawyers for anyone would read it. Of course, there is no baseline estimate of the amount of accommodation and staffing or other logistical requirements that will be needed. We need central government estimates on costs, as we debated on Monday.
As we start today it is worth reflecting on the Minister’s comments in Committee on Monday as to who is included as a person—or “P”. As we found, “P” includes a young woman trafficked to the UK—potentially via multiple trafficking handlers, blackmailed and threatened, most commonly with threats of rape or family retribution—for criminal sexual or labour exploitation.
Home Office data shows the number of irregular arrivals of women since 2018 who received a positive referral to the national referral mechanism was 520. Those 520 women had been criminally exploited, and now they would be imprisoned and deported to a strange third country and, as the Minister confirmed to me on Monday, with no statutory duty for resettlement, readmission or support. Of those women, 73 were 17 and under. Last year, 13 girls came from countries to which we cannot return them. So those sexually exploited girls are now due to be detained and possibly sent to Rwanda. Last year, 13 girls were trafficked for exploitation in the UK, and the Government would now no longer allow their referral for protection. Well, not in my name—and nor should be in the name of any Member of this Parliament.
The Minister told us on Monday that they were part of the gaming of the system. He repeated to me on Monday the false assertion that
“the numbers of people claiming to have been modern slaves in this scenario indicates that there is extensive abuse”.
He also said that
“the simple reality, I am afraid, is that our modern slavery protections are being abused”.
These are misleading talking points from the Minister, and from Suella Braverman, which led, in December, to a formal complaint from Ed Humpherson, the director-general for regulation in the Office for Statistics Regulation, the formal watchdog. In response to those assertions, he investigated the data and wrote to the Home Office on 8 December. In his letter, he said:
“However, policy officials in the department could not point to any specific evidence for this when we enquired. What is more, the proportion of referrals deemed by the Home Office to be genuine cases of modern slavery in its ‘conclusive grounds decisions’ has risen year by year from 58 per cent in 2016 to 91 per cent in 2021, which does not suggest in itself that gaming is a growing problem”.
He continued:
“I would be grateful if you could raise this matter with communications and policy colleagues, encouraging them to ensure that claims in public statements are clear on whether they are sourced from published statistics or from other reliable evidence. This will avoid the risk of misleading people to believe that the statistics say something that they do not”.
So the Minister came to us in Committee in the British Parliament and misled us to believe that the statistics say something that they do not.
What makes that worse is that, in January, Home Office officials accepted the rebuke. Professor Jennifer Rubin, the Home Office Chief Scientific Adviser, replied to the regulator:
“I am glad that you highlighted this issue … The Deputy Director responsible for the publication of the NRM statistics has recently written to the policy and communications Deputy Directors to encourage them to ensure claims made in public statements are sourced from published statistics or other reliable evidence”.
So I hope that, on subsequent days in Committee and when we get to Report, the politicians in the Home Office will also do what the officials have been told to do: not seek to mislead us but use information based on the data.
The data the Minister cited on Monday was also partial. He told me:
“In 2022, there were around 17,000 referrals to the NRM—the highest annual number to date and a 33% increase on 2021”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1199-1203.]
That is correct, but what did he not say? He did not say that, according to the latest Home Office data that he cited, 49% of all referrals—half—are for exploitation in the UK. That has nothing to do with overseas or from small boats; 41% are for exploitation overseas. The biggest increase that contributed to his statistics was child exploitation, growing from 498 to 4,410 in the UK. I ask the Minister: are these abused children in the UK gaming the system?
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the intention expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, to oppose the question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5(1) seeks to put into effect the removal of any person who arrives in the UK other than through a safe route even though, as we have already debated at length, safe routes are virtually non-existent for the vast majority of people coming to this country from Afghanistan, Sudan or Eritrea, for example.
Amendments 27 and 30, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt with two of my major concerns about Clause 5, but there are other concerns. Amendments already tabled and some of those debated seek to protect victims of modern slavery and trafficking, as well as children. If this House approves those amendments, which I expect we shall, Clause 5 would contradict them. I will speak as briefly as I can. For example, Clause 5(1)(a) requires that the Secretary of State must ensure the person is removed, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said,
“as soon as is reasonably practicable after the person’s entry”
to the UK. Subsection (4) restricts that requirement if the person has made a protection or human rights claim, but only if the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent the person’s removal. Newly arrived people with no knowledge of the language or systems of the UK would need assistance for any such claim, and the Bill restricts access to assistance. Under Clause 5, therefore, a person is likely to be removed before they have had a chance to make a protection or human rights claim. Also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has argued, it should not be possible for the Secretary of State to counter a protection or human rights claim, if one has been made, with a subjective power to determine that there are not “exceptional circumstances”. The inclusion of Clause 5 in the Bill would undoubtedly enhance the risks to victims of modern slavery or trafficking and to children, along with all others seeking asylum in the UK. I hope the Minister will agree that Clause 5 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister, in relation to Schedule 1 and Clause 6. I have four concerns about these provisions.
First, I do not understand the rationale for the list in Schedule 1 and I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain it. It seems to me that, of the 57 countries listed, with only two do we have any form of removal agreement: Rwanda and Albania. Does it concern the Government, as it concerns me, that we are setting out a list of destinations without having any international agreement underpinning it in relation to particular countries?
Secondly, some countries among the 57 listed in Schedule 1 are not party to the refugee convention, so they are in no way bound by the same commitments on the treatment of asylum seekers that bind us. Are the Government concerned about that? I am concerned about it, and I am inclined to think that they should be.
Thirdly, it is not clear to me that all the countries of the 57 in Schedule 1 have any kind of asylum system or procedure. I am not sure that all these countries recognise the concept of asylum in law. Can the Government assure me that I am wrong, and that although some of these countries are not party to the refugee convention—that is a fact—they all have working asylum systems? If not, are the Government not concerned about that? I think we should be concerned about it.
Fourthly, we must ask the Minister to construe the language “in general”, which occurs twice in Clause 6(1). The Secretary of State may add to the list in Schedule 1 if he is satisfied that
“there is in general in”
the country in question
“no serious risk of persecution”.
How are we meant to construe “in general”? I do not think it is the kind of language that should be on the statute book.
The second occurrence in the clause is that the removal of persons to a country to be added to the list is possible only if it would not “in general” contravene the human rights convention and our obligations under it. Hold on: pacta sunt servanda. It is not a question of whether “in general” there is a contravention of the human rights convention—there is or there is not. If sending somebody to one of these 57 countries would be a breach of our obligations under the human rights convention in any way, it does not matter if the Government think that “in general” it is all right. The language “in general” should not be here, both on constitutional and legal grounds and on grounds of pacta sunt servanda. If it would breach in any way our commitments under the convention—I believe it would —we should not add the territory in question to the list in Schedule 1.
My last point is also a question about how we should construe the language. Clause 6 talks not just about countries or territories that could be added but about parts of a country or territory. The noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench spoke eloquently about India when we last discussed this, and I have been thinking about what he said. If I were a serving diplomat, I do not know how I would persuade any country—particularly India, but any country—to accept an international agreement with the United Kingdom in which it accepted that parts of its country were unsafe for an asylum seeker. I do not see how any self-respecting country such as India could possibly accept an agreement including a restriction to a part of its territory where an asylum seeker might be sent. We need the Minister to explain to us how we are meant to construe, in Clause 6(1), “in general” and
“part of a country or territory”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in the submission that Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 should not stand part of the Bill. The reasoning becomes increasingly repetitive and circular, because these provisions are parasitic on the meat of the Bill, which is really Clause 2. That is the duty that the Secretary of State is quite deliberately taking upon herself so that it looks as if no discretion is being exercised, she must remove people and therefore the courts have no ability to supervise that judgment. That is the heart of the moral and practical problem with the Bill, so when we look at the parasitic clauses that follow on from Clause 2, we come back to that central problem.
There are so many reasons why this is wrong in both principle and practice. As always, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a most distinguished senior diplomat and former Permanent Under-Secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—which is important. The poor old Home Office gets lumbered with all the tough talk and rhetoric and with translating press releases into legislation, but the foreign department has to represent this country all over the world, negotiate further treaties and hold its head up in its attempt to do so. The foreign department will no doubt try to persuade people that Mr Sunak is so right and that, as I said last time, we should be the hub of AI intelligence and the world regulator, and everybody should support the idea that these treaties should be formulated here. Once upon a time, we could have said that.
If any noble Lords, particularly on the Benches opposite, want to understand the importance of the refugee convention, not as it is being flexibly interpreted by the current Government but as it was intended after the war, they might care to read the correspondence between our wartime Prime Minister and the then Archbishop of Canterbury. That correspondence between Winston Churchill and William Temple is very revealing of what the obligations of the future treaty were going to be in relation to individuated justice for refugees, which of course is the problem.
We were treated last time to good cop, bad cop by two Ministers, from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice respectively; I will leave Members of the Committee to decide who was which. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right in his rather forensic—if I may say so—examination to point out some tensions in the case as it was put by the two Ministers.
The Home Office Minister concentrated, quite rightly, on the message as we have heard it thus far: this is about deterrence; we do not want people to come here; this is all about stopping the boats. Therefore, he stressed the automaticity of Clause 2 and the absolute commitment—no ifs, ands or buts—to a duty to remove anybody who comes by an irregular route; no matter how genuine a refugee, they must be removed. When, as amendment after amendment was debated, and noble Lord after noble Lord gave the litany of heartbreaking cases of trafficked people, of gay people who should not be sent back to certain countries, and so on, the Minister from the justice department pointed up the possibility of exceptional non-suspensive claims—it will be all right, there will be the possibility of individuated justice in those cases. But, of course, both positions cannot be the case, and they were not intended to be. It was excellent advocacy, perhaps, but it does not stand up, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said so clearly in his introduction to the debate.
This is the blanket treatment of claims that were always intended to be considered in a case-by-case analysis. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, there are countries, including very large democracies such as India, perhaps, that are perfectly safe for some people but not at all safe for others—because they are political dissidents, because they are queer, because they are women. That is conceded by the Home Office in the schedule that lists some countries as safe only for men.
It is a diplomatic nightmare to be creating this automaticity of “These are safe countries; these are unsafe countries” and to be telegraphing it in the schedule to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, will say, “There has been this development for some years under Governments of both stripes to have inadmissibility and presumptive safety”. It is one thing to say to your officials considering individual claims that some countries might be prima facie safe, but you still have a duty to consider the individual asylum seeker before you to determine what their story is. That was always the intention in the refugee convention and that is the obligation on signatories to it—and, I would argue, not just signatories any more because non-refoulement has become accepted as a principle of customary international law. That is what we propose to breach by this legislation.
That is how serious it is. The Bill is wrong in principle, wrong in practice and internally incoherent. Certainly, the arguments that have been put by Ministers—elegantly, charmingly, patiently, late into the night—do not hold together, and these provisions should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, following the eloquent speeches of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I would like to refer again to the proposal that Schedule 1 should not stand part.
Some of those countries breach protected rights. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister which of the countries on the list practise female genital mutilation and do not reserve refoulement only for men? Which criminalise homosexuality? Which criminalise humanism? Noble Lords may remember the case of the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria, who has received a life sentence.
Surely it is very odd to remove people to those countries. Does the Minister think that that conforms to our signature to the treaties of international law?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I endorse everything that has been said in the debate so far, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I particularly want to follow on from what the noble Baroness said to the Committee about the suitability of some countries in Schedule 1 as places to which people should be returned; my noble friend Lord Kerr and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, developed that point in their interventions earlier. I will take one example but the arguments I am going to put to the Committee could be applied to other countries on the list as well.
The country I want to talk about is Nigeria. In a later group of amendments, I have Amendment 85C in my name, which seeks to establish
“how the Secretary of State will assess Equality”
provisions
“listed in Schedule 1 and the potential harm to those with protected characteristics including victims of Modern Slavery”.
However, I want to ask the Minister specifically to engage with the issue of justice in Nigeria. This is a country to which we have said it is safe to return men but not women. I argue that it is not safe to return anybody to Nigeria, given the way in which the internal factors in that country currently stand.
The seriousness of the situation was underlined by the visit of Karim Khan KC, the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court, to Nigeria in 2020. He is continuing the investigation into the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetuated by Boko Haram and other factions—as well as the involvement, I might add, of the Nigerian security forces. That investigation began in December 2020 and continues. Whether or not the ICC will determine that a genocide or crimes against humanity are being perpetrated against the religious minorities in the north of Nigeria lies in the future, but the evidence of why this is a hostile environment in which people face outright persecution is overwhelming.
Simply consider the role of what are sometimes euphemistically called “bandit groups”. They have killed, abducted, forcibly converted and displaced vast numbers of people, many of whom end up in small boats. According to government figures, 4,983 women were widowed; 25,000 children were orphaned; and 190,000 people were displaced between 2011 and 2019, with more 3 billion naira paid to bandits as ransom for 3,672 individuals who had been abducted.
In one incident last year, IS West Africa killed eight people and kidnapped 72 people on a Kaduna-bound train from Abuja while, in 2022, Boko Haram killed at least 60 people from the community of Rann, in Borno State, and killed more than 15 women in Gwoza, also in Borno State. In June 2022, the United Nations reported that Boko Haram and splinter factions abducted at least 211 children, recruited at least 63 children, killed or maimed at least 88 children, raped or sexually violated 53 girls and attacked at least 15 schools. In September 2022, UNESCO estimated that 20.2 million Nigerian children were out of school as a consequence.
I think particularly of the plight of Leah Sharibu, who has just turned 20. At the age of 14, on 18 February 2018, she was abducted by Boko Haram, raped, impregnated and forcibly converted. She is one of 110 girls taken from the Government Girls Science and Technical College in Dapchi, in Yobe State. Here in your Lordships’ House, I met her mother, Rebecca. I promised that I would never miss any opportunity that might come my way to raise Leah’s case. I do so again today because it illustrates the dangers faced by people being sent back to Nigeria, whether they are women or men; indeed, if they come from religious minorities that do not fit a particular mindset or ideology, they are doubly endangered.
Elsewhere in the country, secessionist forces in the south-east of Nigeria and protests by the Indigenous People of Biafra led to gunmen killing, maiming and destroying the properties of citizens in the region. Armed forces against separatists have also been involved in at least 122 extrajudicial killings. Media reports suggest that more than 287 people were killed in the south-east between January and May.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will not repeat what has already been said. I agree with most of what has been said in the preceding speeches, particularly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kerr about the inadequacy of Schedule 1, and all the examples that have been given, including those given very clearly by my noble friend Lord Alton, of cases which create real dangers of injustice which are plainly contrary to the international conventions to which this country subscribes. Instead, I want to obtain confirmation from the Minister of some short propositions which relate to Clause 6 of the Bill.
Clause 6 provides that the Secretary of State may amend Schedule 1 in certain circumstances. Can the Minister confirm that if a cogent application is made to the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1 in particular ways and he refuses, that would immediately open the gate for judicial review proceedings? I foresee a menu of 57 opportunities in Schedule 1 for 57 applications for judicial review—perhaps a few fewer—being made by well-known and well-funded NGOs for amendments to be made to that schedule because of circumstances in those countries.
Further, would not the Secretary of State face considerable obstacles if such judicial review applications were made? First, there is the weakness of the standard of proof that is set by the Government for themselves—“if satisfied”, whatever that means. Secondly, in Clause 6(1)(a), which was referred to earlier, the Secretary of State can add a country or territory if satisfied that
“there is in general in that country or territory, or part, no serious risk of persecution”.
Does that not contradict certain other legal provisions which, for example, provide guarantees of safety to a group of people we discussed earlier this week—the cohort of LGBTQ+ people who might be affected?
Thirdly, Clause 6(1)(b) states:
“removal of persons to that country or territory, or part, pursuant to the duty in section 2(1) will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations”.
Is that not pathetically weak, and contradictory to other legislation? I again take the LGBTQ+ cohort as my example.
If that analysis of Clause 6(1) and Schedule 1 is not entirely coherent, surely it is enough to persuade the Government that they should really reconsider the drafting of Clause 6 and the contents of Schedule 1. If they insist on keeping Schedule 1, it should, from the start of the Bill coming into effect, reflect all the dangers in all countries in which there are dangers for certain groups of people who could not be described as people “in general”. This is ineffective, and I am sure it will put substantial fees into the hands of my learned friends, but that is not what this place should be trying to do.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments and the speeches that were just given. I want to make two points only. First, it is extraordinary to me that Schedule 1 shows a list of countries with which this country has no agreement. I cannot understand how one can put into primary legislation a list of countries with which the Government hope to have an agreement, when that is not yet happening.
Secondly, I spoke earlier, at greater length, about the unaccompanied child who comes to the age of 18. Your Lordships have only to think of a child of 10, and we know that some children of 10 have come through. With any luck, a child of 10 will not be kept in Home Office accommodation; he or she is likely to go into the care of a local authority under the Children Acts and will very likely be fostered. It is comparatively easy to be fostered at 10. The child would have spent eight years at an English school, would have grown into speaking English, probably forgetting his or her own language to some extent, and will be settled.
Immediately after the age of 18—subject to the Home Office’s inordinate delays in removing people, but assuming that it achieves something better in the future—he or she can be removed and will go to a country. At the moment, there is only one, unless the child is Albanian, when they would have gone back earlier. That child aged 18, just grown up, will find him or herself in a country the language of which they probably do not speak and he or she will know absolutely nothing. I hope your Lordships agree with me that that, quite simply, is cruel.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I return to the terminology in general. I had tabled amendments in the last group on Monday night, which was a very big group. I could not find a polite way of describing drafting that I regarded as very poor. I resorted to saying that I thought it was
“not a very imaginative way to describe a situation”.
The Minister responding said that the term “in general” is
“not new: it is the test set out”
in legislation of 2002. He continued:
“Including a country in Schedule 1 simply requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that it is considered generally safe”.
He then said that “the individual”—and noble Lords are absolutely right to remind us that we are talking about individuals, not amorphous cohorts of people—
“would still have the opportunity to challenge their removal”.
Later in the debate, when a similar point came up again, the Minister said:
“This is going to be a matter for the judicial process—through the appeal process, the legal advice and the legal representation that these people have. If they can show serious and irreversible harm, then they will not be sent to these places”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1216-35.]
Having criticised the terminology in general, given that the opportunities to challenge Home Office decisions in 2002 were considerably more than are presented in the Bill, I would like a detailed understanding of the Minister’s explanation of using the processes available.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in Committee on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used the example of India. We need to question not just how the list has been devised but the minimum criteria the Home Office wishes to have for each country before it even starts to discuss any agreement with it.
India does not have national asylum legislation: anyone who is a non-Indian citizen is determined as a foreigner under the Registration of Foreigners Act 1939, the Foreigners Act 1946 and the Foreigners Order 1948. This legislation generally governs foreigners within the territory of India. Article 2 of the Registration of Foreigners Act defines a foreigner as
“a person who is not a citizen of India”.
The other two pieces of legislation use the same definition. The Act and the order grant the Indian Government the power to restrict the movement of foreigners and carry out compulsory medical examinations, limit foreigners’ employment opportunities, and control the ability to refuse and return foreigners to their home country. All of these contravene the UN refugee convention. Refugee status is granted, but only to certain nationals of neighbouring countries. People with certain characteristics—for example, Muslims—are predominantly excluded from being granted refugee status.
People who are foreigners in India have further challenges when seeking asylum there: because of restricted employment, they find that they do not have sustainable livelihoods; there is no reliable community support network for refugees there; and access to specialised services for certain people or groups does not exist.
Quite bluntly, I ask the Minister this: is that the kind of situation he wishes to send some of the most vulnerable people in the world into? Ultimately, for every single country listed in Schedule 1, what criteria are the Home Office using before starting any negotiation with those countries?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, many very cogent points have been made in this debate, and I will not repeat them, but I will mention one or two relating to the international dimension. I, too, believe that the use of “in general” is one of the slipperiest pieces of drafting that I have seen in a long time. I suppose that the Home Office may have been ashamed to put “in principle”, the words more often used to get out of commitments in international law than any others, but it means much the same thing. It has no place in this legislation.
Secondly, it seems an enormous hostage to fortune to put a list of countries described as “safe” into legislation tabled in March this year and which will not become statute until much later this year at the earliest. By that time, I suspect that quite a lot of things will have happened in some of the countries listed that will make them completely unsafe. I do not want to refer to individual countries, although people will be aware of what happened last week in Uganda. It is a moving agenda, and it is not wise to fix it in that way.
My third and last point is that there has been much talk of the Government concluding agreements with countries to enable us to send asylum seekers—without considering their asylum applications—to them. I imagine —and perhaps the Minister could reply on this point; it would be quite helpful if he could listen to what I am saying—that it would be useful to know whether those agreements would come before Parliament in the form that the International Agreements Committee of your Lordships’ House takes them. I take it that the answer will almost certainly be “No, they won’t, because they will be based on a memorandum of understanding”. This House has already debated this and established beyond peradventure that the use of a memorandum of understanding in the case of Rwanda was entirely designed to avoid any parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister say whether an agreement that will be reached for return will be subject to the international agreements procedure—CRaG—or not?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed for his devastating critique of the government reasoning behind the measures in this Bill. As he said, the measures could have serious consequences for women and girls who have been trafficked, and he provided some examples of the sorts of numbers that might be involved. The facts presented by my noble friend appeared to show clearly that the system of referrals to the national referral mechanism is not being abused. As he said, much of the increase resulted from claims from those who were already legally in the United Kingdom.
I am very grateful—going back to Monday—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for indicating something of the thinking behind this Bill as far as the Government are concerned. He said:
“All I am saying is that one should have this power; I am not necessarily saying the circumstances in which one should exercise it”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1229.]
I am beginning to wonder whether this is a sort of remake of “The Wizard of Oz”, with these very scary things being put up front with very little behind them. In reply to what my noble friend said about the vulnerable women and girls who could be detained and then deported from this country, the Minister said it might not happen because, as he said, all the Government are saying is that the Government should have the power to do that, but they are not necessarily going to use it.
In relation to Schedule 1—the safe countries—many noble Lords have given graphic examples of why countries do not belong on a safe list. I have to say: what is the point of the list? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said on Monday, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who gave a particular example of a gay man being sent back to a hostile country:
“Secondly, and in practice, this is all predicated on the country being willing to accept them. At the moment, the only agreement we have is with Rwanda. There may well be others. I hesitate to give any commitment but it seems, if I may say so, most unlikely that the fears of the noble Lord are well founded. It is most unlikely that these postulated circumstances will arise in practice”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1234.]
Well, if the Government are saying that each individual case will be considered on its merits, and if a country that is on the list is found to be not safe for that individual, what is the point of the list? What is the point if there is only one country—or potentially two countries—on the list to which the Government can return people? Is this just to try to scare the horses, with no substance behind it? That is increasingly what this Bill looks like.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start, as other noble Lords have done, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for his introduction, the quality of his speech and the comments that he made, which deserve a full answer, and I thank all noble Lords for the detailed and important contributions that they have made.
In that light, I ask the Minister whether he will take back to Downing Street the fact that we do not need to read on the front page of the Daily Telegraph that the PM is set to overrule the Lords on boats Bills. The quality of the contributions that have been made in today’s debate show the importance of the consideration in detail of the legislation. Indeed, the Minister will know, as has been reiterated through the usual channels, that it is not the view held by every single noble Lord that the Bill should be blocked; indeed, we on the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Opposition have said categorically that we will not block the Bill. However, we will not be intimidated by having people, even the Prime Minister, attempting to intimidate us into not properly scrutinising, in a detailed and forensic way, the operation of the Bill.
We can see from the way in which noble Lords have put forward various points and considerations today that there are real questions to answer. I do not believe that the Government Front Bench here or the usual channels did that; to be frank, I think they were probably taken by surprise by it as well. But it is important that we in this House recognise that we have a role to play, which is to revise and improve legislation. The Government are then perfectly entitled to turn around and say, “We totally disagree and we’re not going to take any notice”, but we do not need to be lectured on how we should not attempt to revise it in Committee or on Report. That is an important point to make.
The other point to make as we consider this is for us all to wish the noble Lord, Lord Murray, well in his attempt to get the impact assessment out of the Home Office well before Report. It is too soon for me to ask him in a nasty way whether he has yet had any success, but even if I do not return to this throughout the Committee, I am sure a number of other Members will ask him how it is going—so I will start the process by asking the noble Lord how it is going with regard to getting the impact assessment out.
I will say, without repeating many of the points that have been made, that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti summed up a point that has been reinforced by many noble Lords. At their heart, Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 give effect to Clause 2. In other words, the Government require a blanket ban on asylum claims and therefore require, in a blanket way, people to be removed from the country. I have said time and again that that removal, as we have heard from many noble Lords, is without any real understanding of where to or what the consequences will be. I ask again: is it a fact that the Government believe that the threat of deterrence overcomes or supersedes individual human rights? That goes to the heart of what we are debating, and is a point that the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, have made on numerous occasions. Is it the case that the Government are prepared to accept that, under Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1, individuals may well be at risk of persecution or may have a well-founded asylum claim but, because they have arrived irregularly, that does not matter and they are going to be sent to wherever? Is that the case or not? We could do with knowing the answer to that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will first respond to the first point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and confirm that the Government’s Front Bench was as surprised by the report in the Daily Telegraph as everybody else.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just confirm that the Minister means the Lords Front Bench?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, the Lords Front Bench—this Front Bench. I cannot speak for other colleagues, but I can assure the Committee that no one is attempting to intimidate this House. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is misreported in the Daily Telegraph—it is not the first time the press has misreported a politician—and the Government fully recognise the role that this House has to play in scrutinising the legislation. The Government’s duty, if I may say so, is to listen, reflect on what is said and respond as they think fit, depending on the strength of the points made and the Government’s general policy. I emphasise that there is no question but that this legislative process should be followed duly and properly throughout.
That said, and in relation to following established due process, as it were, we debated Clauses 5 and 6 in detail in Committee on Monday. With your Lordships’ permission, I will not repeat what I have already said in that respect and refer your Lordships to the record in Hansard. To the extent that some points have been repeated, I refer to what was said in the last debate.
If I may also respectfully say so, on various other points that have been raised—for example, in relation to Clause 2, to trafficking, to unaccompanied children and to agreements with third countries and so on— I will not go over the ground that has already been covered or is to be covered in debates on other clauses. These are matters that we are debating on another occasion—the legal rights and remedies, for example—so for today’s purposes I will concentrate on Clauses 5 and 6.
I should perhaps once again go over the ground of what Clauses 5 and 6 actually say. If I am right and your Lordships accept the analysis, I venture to suggest that at least a considerable part of your Lordships’ concerns may be reduced or laid to rest.
In simple terms, Clause 5 deals with two different groups. The first group are nationals, including persons holding an identity document, of the European countries listed in new Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, which are the EU member states plus Switzerland and Albania. If a national of one of those countries makes an asylum or human rights claim, they may none the less be removed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances, which again were referred to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, are defined in Clause 5(5). This part of the Bill is essentially the same as the structure that has stood for many years, including when we were part of the EU, with the addition of Switzerland and Albania. These are safe countries and, in the Government’s view, no reasonable objection can be made in relation to this group.
Now we have the second group, who are nationals of all other countries: those outside the European countries defined in new Section 80AA. What is the position in relation to those nationals? The first point to make is that if the migrant is a national of another country—with all respect to the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Uganda or India, let us take Nigeria—and they make an asylum or human rights claim, for example because of a risk of persecution for their sexual orientation, they cannot be sent back to that country. That is clear from Clause 5(8), so a lot of the concerns expressed about persons being sent back to these countries will relate to nationals of those countries who do not want to be sent back to them. Unless others correct me, if they make a protection—that is to say, an asylum or human rights—claim, they cannot be sent back as nationals to those countries where they fear persecution. That is a very considerable safeguard.
Where can they be sent back to? They can be sent back only to another Schedule 1 country, but subject to very important conditions. The most important condition in this context is that set out in Clause 5(3)(d): only if there is reason to believe that they would be admitted to that country. In other words, it depends on whether we have an agreement with that country to take them back. That is not at present the case, except in relation to Rwanda, but it may in future be the case in relation to other countries.
To take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to whether such future agreements would be—forgive me, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—subject to parliamentary scrutiny, that is a matter for the future. I cannot commit the Government on that here at the Dispatch Box. However, I think your Lordships can be reassured that the availability of all kinds of remedies and the force of public opinion in this country would necessarily require a very full debate to take place before we made an agreement with another country. There is the constitutional safeguard of the constitution of public debate in that regard.
There is no indication that the countries mentioned in this debate—very understandably, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and even India—are likely to be, in any foreseeable future, places to which the relevant migrants could be sent. If we were ever to reach an agreement with another country, the Secretary of State has powers in Clause 6, in particular Clause 6(3), to exclude from that agreement persons of particular sexual orientations or with particular protected characteristics set out in that clause. That is a further protection against the fears noble Lords have expressed.
If all of that were to fail, it remains the case that the individual affected could make his suspensive harm application on the basis that he would suffer irreversible serious harm in that context. I think I can legitimately offer noble Lords reassurance that a great deal of the fears understandably expressed in your Lordships’ Committee rest on a particular view of the Bill that is not entirely correct.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—it was implicit in most of the other comments—what Schedule 1 is for. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked what the rationale of Schedule 1 is. The answer is that Schedule 1 is a reproduction, an amalgamation and a restatement of all the existing legislation from 2002 onwards, in which various countries over the years have been added as safe countries. For example, in 2005 the Labour Government added India on the basis that it was, in general, a safe country.
This also enables me to deal with the “in general” point, which has stood as a statutory point for the last 20 years at least. It might not be entirely within the active career of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, but it has been on the statute book for 20 years. It has not so far given rise to any particular difficulties. That is the background to what we are considering.
In the future, it might be appropriate to keep Schedule 1 updated; it might be necessary to make changes from time to time. Let us cross those particular bridges when we get to them. At the moment, there is no practical possibility of Uganda, for example, accepting migrants who arrive in Dover into Uganda. It might be, to take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the existence of Schedule 1 or the failure to amend it, might be challenged in judicial review. If I may respectfully say so, it would be a somewhat adventurous case to compel a Minister to legislate or to amend primary legislation, but let us again cross those bridges when we get to them.
I hope that I have not taken up undue time and have covered most of the questions that I was asked. I am sure that I shall be reminded if I have not done so; I will do my best to answer them, if anyone reminds me.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
The Minister kindly said that, if he had not answered anything, he would do so. Would he please write to me about which countries practise female genital mutilation, criminalise homo- sexuality and criminalise humanism?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, but I cannot answer it today at the Dispatch Box. My respectful reply is that this issue does not arise for the reasons I have given. The Bill does not envisage, at the moment, returning people to such countries. The general position is that we can continue discussing the provisions on legal requirements, trafficking, unaccompanied children and so forth, but this part of the Bill is an essential part of the Bill. I therefore beg to move—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister and have great respect for his legal analysis. However, I will correct him on the point I made about judicial review. I was not saying that a judicial review could be taken in which the order would be for the Minister to amend the law. The Minister cannot amend the law; we in this Parliament amend the law. The application would be for a judicial review of the refusal of the Minister to take steps to amend the law. That is quite a different matter, and I do not apprehend any difficulty in making such an application for judicial review.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if I misunderstood his point. I respectfully continue to beg to differ as to both the likelihood of such judicial proceedings or the relevance of such judicial proceedings to today’s stand part debate. So, if your Lordships permit me, I beg to move—
Lord Swire (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I ask, gently, whether my noble and learned friend the Minister would not agree that it is worth reminding ourselves that some of these countries—indeed, all those we talked about in the last hour—are Commonwealth countries, including Uganda, India and Ghana. It is worth remembering that Rwanda is not only a Commonwealth country but the current chair-in-office of the Commonwealth, so, surely, that must count for something.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely accept the point my noble friend makes and thank him for it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble and learned Lord is so reassuring, and his manner is so friendly, that one is tempted to believe that this might all be as good as he says. On the two-part process, he says that the list sets out possible destinations, but that the Secretary of State would make a judgment about the individual and whether the individual should not be sent to a particular country for reasons particular to the individual. If it were the noble and learned Lord making these decisions, I would be very reassured; unfortunately, it is the Home Secretary.
I am sorry to press the Minister but he has not really answered my question. He says that the list is based on history, but in the past we have not sent people compulsorily to go through an asylum process in another country—so there is something new here. Further, we have not been sending people to countries where there is no asylum process but we are insisting that they must seek asylum there. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has addressed that point.
I would also be grateful if the Minister would construe for us the language in the first paragraph of Clause 6, which addresses “in general” and “a part”. I have not heard his answer to my question as to why it is all right that a country should not in general contravene the human rights convention—implying that if in particular it does, we do not care—and, secondly, why it refers to part of a country or territory. I do not understand how we can get an international agreement with a counterpart. If I am a negotiator, how do I persuade him to accept that there are parts of his country that are unsafe and parts of his country that are safe? Surely the agreement has to be with the other country in respect of the full territory of the other country, not in respect of part of the territory.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the latter point, I repeat the point I made on Monday that this is precautionary. There is no reason to deprive oneself of the possibility of providing for “a part”. With an enormous country such as India, it may be that up in Nagaland or somewhere there are some disturbances, but that does not prevent us saying that India is a safe country. That is the Government’s answer to the first point.
Our answer to the second point is that the words “in general” have—I am open to correction and I will correct myself if I am wrong—stood for 20 years on the statute book without difficulty and do not preclude, in an individual case, an application being made to oppose removal on the grounds of irreparable harm. It is the combination of a general view that the country is safe with the possibility of individual protection. Those are essentially the answers I gave on Monday.
I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that this is new, but, for the reasons I have tried to explain, it is a workable and, I submit, balanced approach to a very difficult problem which the Bill is trying to solve.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
As always, the Committee is very grateful to the Minister. I want to be absolutely certain that I have understood his case, because this is so important. My understanding is that he is reassuring the Committee on the basis that, first, nobody is going to be sent to the country that they fear in the first place—they are not going to be sent back directly to the country that they have escaped from and which they say was originally persecuting them—and, secondly, they can be sent only if there is a deal with a country. So maybe this is all going to be rhetoric in the end: we are going to tell the British people that we are stopping the boats, and we are going to warehouse more and more people under this whole edifice because there will be a duty under Clause 2 to remove people to places where they are irremovable to because there is no deal. Thirdly, the Minister points to the little chinks in the scheme whereby somebody might make some kind of exceptional non-suspensive claim. That is what I understand to be the three parts of his case.
On sending people to third countries that are unsafe because they are gay or because there is some other reason why that individual person would be at risk, it matters not that they would be unsafe in a third country or unsafe in a first country. In relation to the other little nudges and winks that he offers us—that this is perhaps fiction because in the end we do not have deals with a lot of these countries—that might be some comfort to people coming, and maybe even to those smuggling them, but it is certainly no comfort to the British people on the cost or on the toxicity of the debate we are having about stopping the boats, when actually the boats are not likely to be stopped.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is a question of judgment. The Government’s judgment is that this legislation will go a long way towards reducing the terrible risks that people and unaccompanied children are facing in crossing the channel in difficult circumstances, and will destabilise the business model of the people smugglers. Those are surely legitimate objects for any Government to pursue.
The noble Baroness’s analysis is essentially correct: if I am a national of a particular state and I make an asylum claim or human rights claim then I cannot be sent back to that country; I could be sent back to a country with which—she puts it somewhat colloquially, and I would not quite use these words—we have a deal. The country with which we have a migration partnership at the moment is Rwanda, so that is still a possibility, subject to the individual in that case being able to make an application for either a factual suspensive application or an application based on imminent and foreseeable and serious harm. That is how it works, and that is how the Government see it.
While I am on my feet, I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether the threat of deterrents supersedes individual human rights. For the reasons I have given, our answer is that there is no question of superseding individual human rights due to the protections I have just explained. Refoulement is covered by the existing agreement with Rwanda, and I am sure it will be covered in future agreements.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder if an answer could be given to the question from the Minister’s colleague on the Benches behind him, who asked about Commonwealth countries. Would the Minister agree that many of the Commonwealth countries have laws which criminalise homosexuality? Indeed, Uganda has just passed legislation which says that the death penalty can be used in relation to homosexuality, and in India there are currently a lot of issues and questions about the treatment of Muslims there. There might be very real issues even when it comes to Commonwealth countries.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, there might indeed be issues. Their legislation is a matter for them. The fact that they are members of the Commonwealth which upholds, or seeks to uphold, barest basic standards is a relevant background consideration, as the noble Lord pointed out.
For the reasons I have given, as best I can, the protections in the Bill are adequate to deal with the problems that have been raised. I respectfully say that Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough response, and to those who have spoken.
I looked at the reference to the Commonwealth when the Bill and the schedule were published. It is worth noting that 76% of Commonwealth countries are not considered by this Government to be safe, because 76% of the Commonwealth is not in the schedule. That is not us questioning it; that is the Government making their own decision.
The Minister, in his typically emollient way, suggested that we do not really understand these clauses and that if we did we should not be concerned because, as he put it, the legislation will have no practical operability. We are in a situation where the Home Office is doing the reverse of virtue signalling, which is to try to create, as my noble friend Lord Paddick indicated, the most punitive and threatening environment, of which the justice department will have to pick up the pieces. The Minister has been at pains to point out that there are many elements which would mean that there is no practical operability, but we are being asked to legislate for this, and on the basis of a lack of agreements.
On Monday, the Minister said to me:
“I suppose that the direct answer is that one would have to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the country concerned”.—[Official Report, 5/7/23; col. 1229.]
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others indicated, the Government have not done so, but they are still asking us to legislate. The Minister said that, when we are negotiating some of these agreements in the future, there would be a “force of public opinion” on the agreements and debate. But on the only one that we have, with Rwanda, there was no debate or consultation. We were surprised by it. It was not a treaty that was ratified by Parliament; it was an MoU. The International Agreements Committee forced a debate on the MoU in this House, in which noble Lords took part, and the committee raised the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about refoulement. Unfortunately, this is the pattern of the Government.
On Monday, the Minister was not even able to confirm to me—he said he would write to me and I am grateful for that—that there are child facilities in the Rwanda agreement, because it was not designed for that in the first place. That addresses the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated with regards to those who are children. I referenced 73 children, up to 2022, who would be in the situation of being referred to protection and then on their 18th birthday would receive, under the Bill, a third-country notice, and they would have no idea what that country would be.
Baroness Hamwee
(c) the Secretary of State has published guidance regarding what criteria will be used to determine the order in which individuals who the Secretary of State is required by section 2(1) to make arrangements for removal will be removed from the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment regarding the process the Home Secretary will put in place to determine the order in which individuals will be removed from the UK once the duty to remove is in force.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Clause 7 relates to further provisions about removal. I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 55—I apologise for the grammatical error in it—would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance about the criteria for the order in which individuals are to be removed. It is not likely to be a tidy process and, as we have been debating for two and a half days now, an awful lot of people will be involved.
Therefore, as much transparency as possible about the process is required. For instance, will decisions be taken on the basis of how long individuals have been detained compared with others, where they have been detained, the receiving country, a mixture of all of these, or none of them? On Monday we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about a woman who had been waiting for 10 years—sadly, not that unusual a situation. The people who will be subject to these provisions are left not knowing what is going to happen to them. The lack of certainty is, to my mind, a cruelty among many others. To know not just that the decision is unfavourable but when its implications are going to be felt in the form of removal, as distinct from detention, will be very relevant.
Amendment 55A probes the process of notifying the Secretary of State under Clause 7(3)(b) regarding a suspensive claim, that the individual P
“does not intend to make a suspensive claim”
and proposes that that can be made through an immigration officer. I assume that that is the case. After all, the Secretary of State does not deal personally with every single application. However, with regard to the reference to notification being given orally, I want to raise the problem in my mind that it is too easy to be misrepresented when you make an oral representation, or simply not heard. I hesitated about tabling an amendment here because, on the other hand, I do not want to disadvantage an asylum seeker by requiring notification in writing if that is a difficult thing to do. I assume that P’s representative can give the notification on P’s behalf, but I would be glad of that assurance and also to know who that representative can be. Would it have to be a legal representative or could it be somebody who was providing support through one of the many organisations that work in this sector?
Amendment 57A would leave out the term “or indicated” in Clause 7(8). That provides for directions to transport officers about removal in a ship or whatever other vehicle
“specified or indicated in the direction”.
What does “indicated” mean? Does it mean “a ship” or “a train”? I suppose the latter would be Eurostar or perhaps a train between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic—I do not know. It seems—again referring back to the previous debate—that “indicated” is perhaps a rather loose term. I may be wrong—I will probably be told that it is used in other legislation—but I would be glad to hear from the Minister what we should understand by it. I beg to move Amendment 55.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 57 in this group, and also the clause stand part debate. I will address my Amendment 57 first, but there are serious matters in the clause as a whole which I will come back to in a moment.
Amendment 57 addresses the far-reaching and perhaps unrealistic legal obligations being placed on private actors and companies to effect removal. This includes the captain of a ship, the pilot of an aircraft, the train manager or the train driver being required to enforce removal of an individual by enforcing detention on the ship, aircraft or train, if required, to prevent disembarking before removal has been fulfilled—and also of course to do it the other way round, as these people are mandated to ensure that the person is taken by those means of transport to the country to which they are being deported.
Two things arise from this part of the clause. One is that it gives inordinate powers to the Secretary of State to requisition not just ships, boats, aeroplanes and whatever else but the services of those who run those means of transport to detain and restrain those who are being transported. I will address in a moment the criminalisation of those people in making them subject to this sort of regulation.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that the Government will procure those services by privately chartering planes or ships or whatever but, clearly, this part of the clause, as drafted, gives the power to the Government to requisition those services. The Explanatory Memorandum also says that the Government can requisition scheduled services—scheduled flights to Kigali, perhaps. There are no direct flights from the United Kingdom to Kigali, by the way, and the flights are all operated by airlines based mostly in the European Union. So the Secretary of State can intervene in scheduled flights and require that they take the asylum seeker to a destination.
The other problem is that clearly, there has been no consultation on this matter with those who are now going to be required by the Government to execute this role on their behalf. To emphasise that, I will read to the Committee the views of the UK Chamber of Shipping, the people whose vessels are likely to be requisitioned:
“We are greatly concerned about these clauses becoming law which could require the ship’s master and crew to detain passengers, something which they are not trained to do, at the direction of the Government. The clauses also seem to allow the Secretary of State to set the period for which a ship’s master is required to detain a person on board a vessel—this could potentially lead to a situation where a ship’s crew is stuck in port for an indeterminate amount of time having received an instruction to detain individuals who are then awaiting the outcome of various legal processes to determine their rights. We are concerned that this puts seafarers at much greater risk from positions of conflict and potential harm”.
That is from the chamber of shipping, which obviously has not been consulted. We have also received a letter from the RMT that makes the same points.
The issue here now is: why has this power been taken? The situation is very similar to that in the Nationality and Borders Bill, which, Members of the Committee will remember, would also have criminalised seafarers who perform humanitarian rescues of persons in distress at sea and bring them to the UK, but those provisions were dropped from that Bill because these people should not be criminalised in this manner.
My first question to the Minister is: if it was determined and agreed by Parliament that this sort of clause was not required for the Nationality and Borders Bill, what is different now? How are the circumstances different? Is it because there are many people—airline pilots or crew, perhaps—who have not been willing to deport people in the manner the Government propose? Secondly, is it because the Government are not intending to provide anyone to accompany these people on their journey but are expecting them to be dealt with entirely by the crews of existing means of transport?
It is beyond my ability to understand why this law is now being put in place when it was previously deleted from an Act that had some of the same intentions. It seems to me that this is an unworkable section of the Bill, particularly in respect of people’s understanding of how they are to be expected to carry out jobs for which they have received no training, in which they have no experience and which they may find morally repugnant.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, the following group, which I will lead on, deals specifically with the impact of this legislation on workers in the transport industry. I have one question on Clause 7(8) which places responsibilities on
“owners or agents of a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle”.
These responsibilities are onerous. Have the Government consulted the people involved and made an assessment of the impact? Will those issues be dealt with in a weighted impact assessment?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this Bill is about removing rights and making life as miserable as possible for some of the most vulnerable and desperate people in the world. I find it impossible to understand how we have ever come to this point. Part of this process is removing human rights with regard to access to the courts—removing the courts’ ability to intervene when the Government act unlawfully. How can that happen? How can this come to us in any sort of legislation? Detaining and deporting people without providing them with any legal advice, or even any information about how to obtain legal advice, all contribute to this denial of human rights.
I was in Belgium for a few days last week. I speak decent French and some German and there were times when I could not understand a word anyone was saying. The idea that we might not help people in a language they can understand and communicate in astonishes me.
We are in an absurd situation where murderers and paedophiles could be more kindly treated by the law than, for example, a desperate family who arrive in a small boat from across the channel.
Then there is the outrageous Clause 7. This is bonkers. When I first read it, I had to laugh—it sounds like something a two year-old might come up with. It says that the Secretary of State can commandeer
“any ship, aircraft, train or vehicle”.
So the border patrol—or whoever it is—can stuff people into somebody’s car and say, “Right, you are responsible for them. You get them out of the country”. It is astonishing. Who wrote this? How does this come from a Government whom we sort of hope might be able to tough it out for the next few months—actually I do not want them to tough it out; I want them to go. Presumably, this Government do want to tough it out, so why bring this sort of rubbish to this House? It is actually quite offensive.
In Clause 7, they are asking ordinary citizens—the British public—to act as border enforcement agents. I do not think any of us would want to do this, even the most rabid ERG member you could possibly think of. This is part of the problem with the Bill. It is not going to help the situation in any way at all. Is it designed to pander to the extreme right wing of the Government, so that they can say they are doing something and perhaps retain those votes? I have no idea. The thought processes are beyond understanding. Clause 7 is unbelievably bonkers.
It shows how this Government are trying to exploit Just Stop Oil, asylum seekers or people such as that to make the public think they are actually doing something about the problems these people are facing. I really hope that we defeat quite a lot of this Bill before it gets much further.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, what rights people have when they come into this country—unlawfully, the Government claim, although some of us would disagree—is surely an essential part of this Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I know the Minister is a member of the Bar and has practised in criminal courts and elsewhere, so he will understand instinctively how important the question of rights is for people who have just come into this country, often in a destitute state.
We know that later in Committee we will debate legal aid and the Lord Chancellor’s duties. Those are important matters to be considered then but I wonder, given the speeches that have been made on this group, whether he has something to say about the Government’s attitude towards the rights of people whom he or others may not like, but who do have rights when they arrive in this country. Do we just say that there are no such rights—no right to any advice or legal aid, if that is necessary, because they deserve what comes to them—or do we take the more sensible and British attitude that anybody who ends up on our shores and is in trouble should be entitled to some advice?
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, broadly speaking, I support this Bill, but there are many things in it which give me cause for concern and we have now hit one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned it—the extent to which the state can co-opt unwilling people to implement its legislation. Regarding those who happen to be the driver of a train or pilot of an aircraft that has on board what we are now going to determine is an illegal immigrant, how can we force such people to act as agents of the state in detaining them?
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that this will come up in the next group but it is an important, fundamental point. I am not talking about the refugees but the many trade unionists who will be horrified at the thought of being co-opted as almost part of the police. This is not on. Before the Bill moves to the next stage, I hope the Government can come forward with some proposals which will exempt ordinary workers from becoming its policemen.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all seek clarification of various issues. My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly asked what priority is to be given to removals under the Bill, bearing in mind that the uncertainty is very corrosive of people’s mental health. She asked how P will give notice to the Home Secretary and spoke about the dangers inherent in oral notice being given. She said that that could easily be regarded as giving notice that they do not intend to make a suspensive claim, and she spoke about the danger of language difficulties, misinterpretation and so forth.
My noble friend Lord German and other noble Lords raised the question of requiring private individuals to carry out enforced removals. Most, if not all, will not have been trained in or compensated for undertaking the risks associated with forcibly removing people from this country. He also asked a very important question about consultation. Who has been consulted: trade unions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred, or the commercial organisations that are going to be required to undertake this work? There are other uncertainties, as my noble friend Lord German set out. It would be most helpful if the Minister provided answers to these questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has a habit of saying what many of us are thinking, but we may not be prepared to stand up and use her exact words. What I would say about Clause 7 is that it smacks of desperation.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group centres around Clause 7, as we have heard, and seeks clarification on procedures which outline the provisions about removal. There are several smaller amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, on the details of removal. Probably the most important amendment is Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Baroness, which would ensure that the Government produce guidance on the criteria by which individuals will be prioritised for full removal.
In her very extensive introduction, the noble Baroness asked who P’s representative can be when going through this process. Should the representative be a lawyer, someone from an NGO or some other status of representative? If I might be allowed a short recollection, I sat in on an immigration tribunal at Hatton Cross as a member of the public. I was astonished that neither the applicant going through the immigration tribunal process, nor their representative, spoke English. That was the reality of the situation that I witnessed. I very much hope that, in the sorts of examples that we are talking about in this Bill, P will be properly informed about the processes that they are going through, that they know what their rights are and that they can make their decisions as appropriate.
Amendment 57, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, is about the requisition of services by private actors and companies. He explained his amendment very fully. It may be unfortunate that this overlaps a lot with group 3, as my noble friend Lord Davies has just said, but nevertheless that is where we are. My noble friend asked about representations and what consultation has been done with the trade union movement about who will be asked to play their part in working in these companies. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s questions.
On the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I will not even attempt the rhetoric of the noble Baroness; it is just not my style—the point, nevertheless, is that the recipient needs to understand what is being said to them and the language must be appropriate. This is a common-sense amendment. It is a simple amendment. I hope that the Minister can indicate that some form of wording can be found in this Bill to ensure that P, who is the subject concerned, understands what is happening to them. We support the amendments in this group.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 7 makes provision for a removal notice to be given to a person and specifies what information this must contain. Each notice must specify that the individual is to be removed under the duty, be clear on their destination and set out a claim period in which to make a factual suspensive claim or a serious harm suspensive claim. That is, of course, suspensive of removal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described her Amendment 55 as a probing amendment, seeking to elicit our intentions as to the order in which individuals will be removed from the UK under the duty to remove in Clause 2. The whole purpose of the Bill is to remove persons who satisfy the conditions as soon as practicable. On the day of commencement, we will be dealing with two separate cohorts. First, there will be those who enter the UK illegally on or after the commencement date. Putting unaccompanied children to one side, as we already have debated how they will be considered, our aim will be to process new arrivals as quickly as possible as they arrive. Clearly, the speed with which individuals are removed will depend on whether they consent to a voluntary departure or, if not, whether they make a suspensive claim. Secondly, as we have discussed, the Bill will have a retrospective effect and the duty to remove will apply to those who entered illegally on or after 7 March this year. Where, in the case of this cohort, any asylum or human rights claim has not been decided by the commencement date, we will commence removal action in accordance with the duty in Clause 2, in parallel with the enforcement action that is being taken against new arrivals.
I assure the Committee that the necessary planning is under way to support the effective and efficient implementation of the Bill, which will ensure that we have an integrated and robust end-to-end process from arrival through to removal. This will cover the use of detention, case-working operation, management of appeals and the logistics associated with the returns themselves. I agree with the noble Baroness that development of robust guidance and training will be a key component across all of this. However, while work on implementation is well under way, we should not get ahead of ourselves. First, we must get the Bill on to the statute book in a form that is operable. We cannot be legislating for a scheme that is so full of holes that it is unworkable.
Amendment 55A seeks to probe how the process will operate, should an individual indicate that they do not wish to make a suspensive claim. If an individual notifies the Secretary of State that they do not intend to make a suspensive claim, the person may be removed to the country or territory which they have been given notice of. As the noble Baroness suggests, such notification may be to an immigration officer or a Home Office official. Where it is given orally, it will be duly recorded. I hope that affords an answer to her point.
Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would set out in statute two additional requirements to the notice, which must be given to the person before they may be removed—that it is provided in a language which they understand and provides information on how to access legal advice. It would be prohibitively expensive to provide translations of decision notices in all possible languages and dialects up front, and there would be a time delay in doing this on an individual basis. It is therefore more efficient to work with interpreters. It is already our current policy to ensure, when serving notices in person, that the contents are explained to the individual in a language which they understand, using interpretation services where required. We also provide information on how to access legal services where relevant.
On the question of legal advice, I reassure the Committee and the noble Lord that, in giving this notice, we will ensure that we also provide information on how to access any legal advice which individuals are entitled to and on how to make a voluntary departure. We will discuss this further in relation to the legal aid provisions, which will come before the Committee in the next few days. Therefore, it is unnecessary to put these additional requirements into the statute.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, deals with the legal obligations that these provisions place on transport operators. The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Balfe raised the same point. This amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, pointed out, overlaps with his own group of amendments, which we are debating in the next group. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content if I deal with the substance of his Amendment 57 when we reach Amendment 57B.
Amendment 57A seeks to test the drafting of Clause 7(8), where it refers to a vehicle being
“specified or indicated in the direction”.
A direction “specifying” a ship, train, aircraft or vehicle may refer to a particular ship et cetera scheduled to depart at a specified date and time, whereas a direction “indicating” a ship may be a more generic item, for example, specifically or simply referring to a flight to depart that day rather than to a particular flight. Moreover, I point out that the drafting here is drawn from and reflects long-established terminology used in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
I will deal briefly with Clause 9. It simply makes a number of consequential amendments to existing immigration legislation to ensure that it works smoothly. There is no contradiction alongside the new provisions for removal in the Bill.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord German, persons served with a removal notice will have eight days to submit a suspensive claim beginning from the day that they were given such a notice. We will come on to Clause 54 in due course; as I have already said, it provides for free legal advice for those issued with a removal notice. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Bach, persons subject to the duty to remove will have access to advice.
Lord German (LD)
I was interested in two stages. The Minister has talked about when the notice of removal is issued. Presumably there is also a statement of inadmissibility when you have arrived, because it takes some time to prepare the document or whatever the detail is for a removal certificate or notice. Is there an earlier notice? If so, is that the place where people can seek advice?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not have the answer to that at my fingertips but, if I may, I will revert to the noble Lord with it. I suspect that the availability of legal advice will be drawn to the attention of individuals at the earliest possible time, but I will check that point and come back to the noble Lord.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made some valid points on which I will further reflect. I hope I have at least gone some way to respond to the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. On that basis, I ask whether she is content to withdraw her Amendment 55.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it is Committee stage and, as the whole Committee knows, that is what I will do.
On this amendment, the Minister said, possibly twice, that things will be done “as soon as practicable”, but we know that not very much is practicable. It sounds like a parallel, idealised—well, it is not ideal to me but it may be in the Government’s mind—universe where all is possible. On the previous group, my noble friend referred to being somewhere within the wizardry of Oz. I do not know who is which character, and perhaps it would be inappropriate to speculate. However, the point about uncertainty in the minds of the individuals concerned is serious, which is why I made it earlier.
I do not think the Minister answered my question on Amendment 55A about whether notification can be given by a representative of the individual and whether that has to be a legal representative or could be a support worker from an organisation in the sector. Is he able to respond to that now?
Lord German (LD)
I also asked a question to which the Minister did not reply, about a person escaping from South Sudan via Kenya. Kenya would be treated as an unsafe country because it is in Schedule 1. Could the Minister respond to that when he has a moment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I apologise for not answering the noble Baroness’s question. Yes, is the answer; representatives could be provided in that way.
To reply to the hypothetical situation that the noble Lord referred to about someone from South Sudan travelling via Kenya, it would depend on the facts of the specific case and whether the conditions were met. It is perhaps not directly relevant to the debate we are having on this amendment, but I am happy to consider that hypothetical in more detail and write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
To be absolutely clear, is the Minister saying that notification can be given via any representative and that they do not have to be qualified in a particular way?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That is certainly my understanding. If the situation is any different, I will let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I think that is quite important, as it matters how these things work in practice. Having said that, and as I indicated, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment, along with that to Clause 9 at page 12 in the name of Lord Davies of Brixton, removes subsections that place responsibilities on a captain of a ship or aircraft, the train manager of a train or a driver of a vehicle that are in addition to those under the existing law.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, those who have been present for the last group will inevitably experience déjà vu, for which I make no apology. The implications of this legislation for the people upon whom obligations are being placed is clearly an important aspect of the Bill. It is not about the principle, where our position has been made clear; it is about the inadequate thought and consideration that has gone into preparing this legislation.
These clauses are a form of conscription—compulsory enlistment for state service, typically but not necessarily into the Armed Forces. Requiring transport workers, going about their normal work, to undertake state service—additional responsibilities mandated by the Government—constitutes a form of conscription. I will not take this too far but, for seafarers, it is effectively a return of the press-gang.
As the Minister alluded to in his remarks on the previous group, for transport workers there are already provisions for this sort of activity in the immigration Acts. People get deported in accordance with the law when they have no right to remain in the country. That raises the question: if it is already happening, why are these additional powers required?
I would argue that there is a highly significant difference between the existing practice and that proposed in the Bill. There is no dispute about that difference. The front of the Bill states that the Minister is
“unable to make a statement that … the provisions of the … Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
That is the human rights convention. This makes an enormous difference when we come to the imposition of additional responsibilities on employees. It is clearly a matter of concern to transport workers that they will be required to undertake actions when the Government cannot provide an assurance that, in doing so, they are not impinging on an individual’s human rights.
It therefore behoves the Government to take extra care when preparing such legislation. It is perfectly clear that this care has not been taken. There is a total lack of any assessment of the consequences and a failure to undertake any meaningful consultation with those who will be directly affected by the legislation or even their employers. With these amendments, I am asking the Minister to take the opportunity to review the provisions in this part of the Bill that impact on individual workers before it returns on Report.
I turn to the amendments specifically. They would simply delete those provisions that are of serious concern to rail staff and seafarers—as expressed by their trade union, the RMT—and to employers across the transport industry, where I understand there has been little or no consultation about their practicalities.
Amendment 57B would amend Clause 7 by deleting subsections (12) and (13). Here we have the powers for the Home Secretary to require train “owners”, as the Bill puts it, to “make arrangements” to deport individuals who fall foul of the legislation. It gives immigration officers the power to instruct people employed as train guards, for example, to detain and even restrain someone the Home Secretary is seeking to remove from the UK on passenger rail services. In effect, guards on passenger rail services will be turned into prison guards, acting under the direction of the Home Secretary and not that of their employer.
It is worth reminding the Committee that transport workers are routinely advised not to put themselves in situations of conflict when performing their contractual duties. They signed up to provide a transport service, not to act as untrained and inexperienced prison guards. This approach of lack of confrontation was uppermost in people’s minds around the enforcement of face mask wearing and other aspects of the Government’s Covid-19 response. Why is this situation, which is more extreme, any different? I understand that the RMT has tried to contact, and spoken to, transport Ministers and employers in the industry to seek their support in opposing these provisions.
I turn to seafarers. The captain of a ship will also be subject to these provisions. In practice, that would mean immigration officers directing the ship’s captain, who would then be obliged to instruct the ship’s crew to detain and even restrain people, subject to the Bill’s provision.
When the Immigration Act 1971 and other legislation to which the Minister has referred already contain significant powers to control migration, why are these additional powers required?
Amendment 58A would delete Clause 9(1) and (2). These provisions add rail employees to the list of transport workers subject to fines—criminal penalties—of up to £5,000 under Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971, in relation to the removal process. This rush to legislate has been undertaken with scant regard to, and certainly no consultation with, workers on their responsibilities, even when they could be prosecuted if someone being transported in accordance with the instructions of the Secretary of State were to “disembark”, as the legislation puts it, or were not removed from the UK. In effect the Government are threatening transport workers, particularly rail and shipping staff and their employers, with criminal sanctions if they fail to impose custodial conditions on people submitting a claim for asylum in the UK. Once again, the Government do not appear to have undertaken any impact assessment of these proposals, particularly what they mean for individuals.
Amendment 71B would delete part of Clause 11(1). There are already significant powers in the Immigration Acts for an immigration officer to instruct the captain of a ship or aircraft to detain a person being removed from the UK if they have not been granted leave to remain or have attempted to enter the UK illegally on a ship or aircraft. But Clause 11(1) significantly amends paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.
The effect of this provision is that the Secretary of State, rather than the courts, will determine what is a reasonable period to detain an individual for, for the specific statutory purpose. If the Secretary of State does not consider that the examination, decision, removal or directions will be carried out, made or given within a reasonable period, the person may be detained for a further period that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, reasonably necessary to enable arrangements to be made for release.
The concern is that the Bill appears to give the Home Secretary much broader powers to require the detention of people on ships and aircraft for long periods of time. This is likely to mainly affect services chartered by the Home Office or the Home Secretary, but clarification is needed on the impact on the ships’ crews, who will potentially be stuck in port for an indeterminate period of time under the instruction of the Home Secretary.
As with the concerns I have raised over the contents of Clauses 7 and 9, the provisions in Clause 11(1) put seafarers and other transport workers in positions of conflict and potential harm at the instruction of the Secretary of State.
Given these concerns, I press the Minister to answer the following questions. First, will transport workers be prosecuted if they do not detain asylum seekers in line with the provisions of the Bill—actions clearly outside their contract of employment?
Secondly, what impact assessment have the Government conducted of these amendments, which bring transport workers and their employers into the scope of the legislation with the threat of criminal sanctions? If they have made an assessment, will they reveal it?
Thirdly, what consultation have the Government conducted with employers across the transport industry regarding these powers? I asked a question in relation to the previous group. I would have pressed the Minister at the time but, since I have this second bite at the cherry, I raise it now: what consultation has taken place? If there has been none, will they swiftly organise some? Will they include the results of such discussion in the fondly awaited impact assessment?
Fourthly, what discussions have the Government had with the devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland over the effect of these requirements on Transport for Wales, ScotRail and cross-border rail operations?
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, as we can see, there has been an inevitable crossover between this group of amendments and the previous ones, as the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Balfe, mentioned. I rise in support of this last group of amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Davies.
For workers, there can be no doubt: it is somewhat disgraceful that Ministers are seeking to make transport workers responsible for detaining and even restraining asylum seekers. The TUC says that this idea shows “total disregard” for these workers’ ethical views and legal obligations. As has been mentioned, the RMT has put this in even starker terms, as did my noble friend Lord Davies a few seconds ago: these proposals will turn train guards into prison guards. Think about those words for a moment; it cannot possibly be right.
Clause 7 risks putting transport workers in situations of conflict, while Clause 9 increases their exposure to criminal sanctions and drags train managers and others into the removal process. This is surely completely unacceptable and unnecessary. The legislation is vindictive and inhumane. It seeks to exploit boat crossings in the channel to stoke resentment against refugees and migrants seeking asylum in this country.
These amendments are probing in nature and designed to draw out the Government’s reasoning behind these appalling proposals. They would protect transport workers from the terrible burden that Ministers seek to place upon them.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. As noble Lords will know, I frequently get up to speak on the rights of trade unionists. I am also president of a trade union affiliated to the TUC.
The purpose of this discussion is to encourage the Minister to go away and, we hope, say, “Well, they made some good points there. We had better bring forward some amendments. We ought to change same of the provisions of this Bill because it really doesn’t work.” Hence, I am speaking in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
In Amendment 57B, the noble Lord is seeking to delete the phrase
“the captain of the ship or aircraft, the train manager of the train or the driver of the vehicle must"—
not “can”, “should” or “might consider”, but “must”—
“if so required by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State prevent P from disembarking”.
Immigration officers are also in trade unions. They have a very difficult life. Who is going to decide what they actually order the captain of the aircraft to do? Anyway, if the aircraft is up in the sky and it is suddenly discovered that someone is on board who should not be, what is the captain supposed to do? The captain of the aircraft has two principal jobs: to bring the passengers safely to the destination, and to do the same for the plane. They are not prison warders.
In many cases, of course, if this happened mid-air, they would not have realised the situation when they took off. Those of us who have been around a long, long time and can remember the hostage crises of many years ago will know that the situation became apparent only when aircraft were actually in the air. I am not asking the Minister, “will they be prosecuted?” because the Bill says that they will. I want to know under what circumstances it is envisaged that prosecution will be brought, and by whom it will be brought. Will it be the DPP, the department or the Minister? What will be the aim of the prosecution?
Amendment 58A would delete, amongst other things, the phrase
“knowingly permits a person to disembark in the United Kingdom”.
What is someone in that situation supposed to do? If a train comes into a station, it is very difficult to stop people getting off it. Noble Lords who have travelled to Brussels will be well aware of the number of times it is announced over the Tannoy that “You must not disembark at this station”. If someone does disembark, however, has the driver knowingly permitted them to disembark simply because they have gone into a station? Should they have stopped in the middle of the countryside? I ask the Minister to look at whether there should be an indemnity for transport workers, so that these provisions are not used to prosecute them. If they are, why should any pilot take the risk of flying an aircraft that might have an asylum seeker on it? Rostering is voluntary: you do not queue up and say, “you go there”. That is where the weakness lies—I diverge slightly—in the minimum strikes legislation. You cannot order people to do things, not in a free society; and that is where we live.
I ask the Minister to talk to the transport unions and to his own department about what it is trying to do with this and whether it will actually work. What concerns me about this Bill, as with the minimum strikes legislation, is that we are progressing rapidly towards a fairyland where pass legislation that just will not work. It is not a good thing to do, because it does not breed respect for legislation. I, and many people in Britain, want illegal immigration to stop. There is a general feeling out there in the country, particularly among the trade union members that I deal with, that you should not be able to cheat the system. But you have to make this Bill work to achieve that, rather than just achieving headlines for the Daily Mail, and for us all to look smart. The challenge is to make this work, not to make it look good.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this provision, because when I read the Bill and saw it, I genuinely thought that it must have been a drafting error on the part of civil servants that Ministers had not noticed. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, move his amendment, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken, it seems very sensible to me that this be taken back by the Government before Report. I am amazed that there was no consultation with the trade unions on this issue, which really does affect their members’ livelihoods. If this went through, I can imagine how workers on planes, ships and other forms of transport would react, knowing that it could be used against them.
It right that this Chamber address this issue, being an advisory, revising Chamber that gets things changed that we think are obviously wrong. In addition to what has already been said about consultation, why has this not been discussed properly? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said, many trade union members believe that the way we deal with illegal immigration has to change, but this is not the way to do it. This bit of the Bill must be taken out. The Minister should accept that there will not be support for it in this House, and that the other place has not, perhaps, thought about this in a sensible way.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling these amendments, which are supported by the trade union movement and by other noble Lords.
I will put my cards on the table: my personal position is that coercive powers of detention should be in the hands of the state, for a number of reasons. I think Ministers should be directly responsible for the use of coercive power in our democratic society, and those powers should be exercised by properly trained people who enter into a profession to exercise powers such as that. However, that is not everyone’s position. I know that reasonable people, including friends of mine with whom I disagree and some on the Benches opposite, believe, for example, in private prisons. Those are circumstances where there is a contract that a private provider enters into to provide services for detention, coercion and so on. I have problems with that; I will not bore the Committee with my various concerns about it, but I believe that there is an entire Wikipedia page devoted to G4S scandals. I am thinking also of Brook House detention centre and the various people who have died in the context of forced removal from the country. I have concerns about the use of private contractors to exercise some of the most coercive powers of the democratic state.
However, the problem that has been identified by my noble friend Lord Davies and others is even more serious than that, because these are not private guards who have been employed by AN Other private security company—although I am concerned about that, and the scandals speak for themselves—but people who are transport workers. They are used to giving service to the public, which is a very different job with a very different understanding, different training and, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, different preoccupations and priorities from the use of coercive force.
On mixed flights, holidaymakers sit alongside deportees. To be fair, that is already a problem; under the regime that we have now, these problems have arisen for some time, but the Bill makes the problem worse. We also have to be realistic that, in the context of the challenges we will face on this planet in the years to come, more and more desperate people will come. The idea of having mixed flights, with transport workers now being responsible for a policy of transportation in addition to normal service provision with the priorities of customer safety, is a total nonsense. If the Government want to pursue the sorts of policy that we are seeing in this legislation, with controversy, coercion and desperate people who may want to fling themselves off the train, the ship or the plane, that is really not appropriate for transport workers. We are now getting into a transportation policy of coercive control and removal, and that really ought to be done by servants of the state, agents of the state, who have been employed for that purpose.
It is not just for the sake of their consciences or for the safety and security of the desperate people themselves—or indeed the terrible people. We keep calling them “illegal migrants” but that is a bone of contention, because of course these people are being removed without consideration of their asylum claims, so we do not know whether they are illegal or not. However, whether they are illegal or are genuine refugees, some of these people will be desperate and will resort to desperate means to escape removal, and the lovely people who I travel with on the trains, when I can, should not be charged with that task; it should be people who are genuine volunteers who have been properly trained, and they should be directly responsible to Ministers when things go wrong, which I am afraid they sometimes will. So the amendments are very well put and I urge the Government to think again.
The Minister will rightly say that this is not novel. I do not want to pretend that it is totally novel to give directions to conventional transport providers and to contract out aspects of immigration control; bit by bit, that has been happening for decades, and it has simply been turbocharged by this policy. However, it is not safe or ethical, and nothing good will come of it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, my point, which I hope is a helpful one, follows on from what the noble Baroness has said but also from what the Minister said about the need for interpreters; he was talking about Clause 55, but I can see the same thing happening here.
A few months ago in your Lordships’ House we discussed the whole nature of the qualification of interpreters. We came to a conclusion that, sadly, this was often wanting. Justice and democracy are served only if people who have to make a case for themselves are understood, and if they are talking to someone who can put their case cogently. My question to the Minister is: when he talks about interpreters, is he talking about people who will be adequately qualified?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is an overlap between the last group of amendments and this one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for setting out specifically what the issues are here, particularly the additional complications of the potential incompatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore workers being asked to act in contravention of people’s human rights. There have been instances where whole aeroplanes were chartered and immigration officers have accompanied people who were being removed, but here we are talking potentially about removals in numbers that we have never seen before—if the Government are to be believed.
The Government seem to be asking transport workers, who have not been trained in self-defence, to safely detain people or safely restrain them if they resist. They are not paid to do that sort of work or cope with those sorts of risks. What about employer liability insurance? What happens if a fight develops between a transport worker and one of the people being deported, and the person being deported ends up suing the transport worker? What about indemnity? What indemnity are the Government going to provide to these transport workers, who are effectively being used as agents of the state?
Again, what consultation has taken place with trade unions and transport operators around the feasibility of the proposals contained in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, pointed out, and as my noble friend Lord German pointed out in the last group, there was the potential for seafarers to be prosecuted under the Nationality and Borders Bill if they attempted to rescue people from drowning in the English Channel, if they believed that they were illegal migrants. Now we are talking about potentially prosecuting transport workers who fail to act as agents of the state in detaining people for removal. How can that possibly be part of what a transport worker signs up for when they take on their role?
As my noble friend Lord German said in the last group, the UK Chamber of Shipping has written to noble Lords. The overall problem with this measure can be summed up when it says:
“We are greatly concerned about these clauses becoming law which could require the ship’s master and crew to detain passengers, something which they are not trained to do, at the direction of the Government”.
As I said on the last group, this whole clause seems to be an act of desperation and something that the Government really need to think about again.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I will intervene briefly. I very much want to hear what is said by my noble friend Lord Coaker, who will be speaking next. I have only one very simple observation to make. Although I have attended most of the debates on this Bill I have not been able to get into the detail of this, and I certainly did not get into the detail of this problem until my noble friends Lord Davies of Brixton and Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, spoke. It is a very simple proposition: these provisions are just unworkable.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Davies for Amendments 57B and 58A, which I think are very worthy and have signed. They encapsulate the points that I and many noble Lords have made throughout the passage of the Bill so far, and no doubt will in the future, that it is not only issues of principle that concern many of us with respect to this but that many of the provisions are simply unworkable and raise serious questions.
If noble Lords have not done so already, it is worth taking up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and reading Clause 7(12)(a) and (b), which is at the heart of this group of amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, the captain of a ship or aircraft, the manager of a train or the driver of a vehicle must conform to the directions of an immigration officer to detain an individual and stop them escaping. That is not only if it is reasonable to do so or if it is something you could understand them doing; they must do it—they have no choice. I do not know about some of the lorry drivers the Minister knows, but good luck with that. The serious point was made that the language barrier will be enormous, or at least significant, in many of those instances.
I have some specific questions, and they repeat and reinforce some of the points that have been made. Can the Minister explain how the captain of a ship, a lorry driver or a train manager—that is who we are talking about here—will detain these people? If the immigration officer requires them to detain someone, how are they meant to do that? As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, ably put it, given that they are not warranted officers and do not have the powers of police officers or other individuals, what force can they use? “Excuse me, please do not get out of my lorry. I have been required by the immigration officers to stop you”—I am not sure that that would work, but let us say it does. But if it does not, and the person tries to get out, what can they do to stop them? I hope the Minister can explain that. The problem is that if they do not stop them, they can be prosecuted. One of the noble Lords who contributed said that it is not that they might be prosecuted but that they will be prosecuted if they do not conform. What happens if they try but the person escapes? Who decides whether they have tried enough—that they have gone to a sufficient extent to prevent the person leaving? Knowing the practicalities of this would be useful.
Clause 7 says “vehicle”, which means a lorry, but does it also mean a car or a campervan? If you are a driver of a car and somebody is in the back, do you have to stop them getting out on the direction of an immigration officer? Is it the same rules for children as for adults? The Minister will say I am nitpicking, but we are in Committee and that is the whole point of Committee. Whether for a lorry driver, train manager or car driver, we need to know whether the Government assume that you can do the same with children and what force is applicable with respect to children vis-à-vis an adult. There are, as I say, a significant number of questions.
The last point I want to make, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Davies, is about the detention period for which someone can force a person to stay in their train, on their aircraft or in their car. What is the reasonable length of time? How does it work? I think the Bill may say a few hours but what happens when that expires? The Secretary of State is then required to say that it can be extended. How does that work? How is the driver informed about that? On the practicalities, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made a really interesting point, which again sounds like nitpicking. If you are a train driver or a lorry driver, and you arrive somewhere and are required to stay there for 12 hours or 24 hours, what rights do you have? Are you required to stay there, or can you pass it on to somebody else to take over from you and carry on with that period of detention?
My noble friend Lord Davies and the unions, and others who have supported them, have raised a series of important questions about why the detail is so important and why many of us have questions about not only the principles of the Bill but some of the proposals in it and the workability of them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 7 includes requirements for various persons, such as owners and agents of a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle, the captain of a ship or aircraft, the train manager or the driver of a vehicle, to comply with directions for an individual’s removal from the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, has explained in his Amendments 57B, 58A and 71B that he seeks to probe the legal obligations these provisions place on transport operators.
If I may, I will address the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether this relates to private vehicles. The answer is that it is related to scheduled or chartered services, not individual cars or campervans.
I would like to make it absolutely clear that the Government are not making transport workers or operators undertake immigration functions. Clearly, I am in agreement with much of what we have heard during the debate on this group. That is not something we would want to do. Nor are the provisions in Clause 7 about commandeering vessels or vehicles, as was suggested in the debate on the last group; we can and do make arrangements for removal by scheduled services or chartered services. Nor are these new requirements; they reflect provisions that are already in place in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for arranging the removal of persons not subject to the new duty in the Bill but otherwise liable to removal from the UK.
Having placed a person on board a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle for their removal from the UK, it is only reasonable that the Secretary of State or an immigration officer may require the relevant captain, manager or driver to prevent the person disembarking while that vehicle, ship, aircraft or train is still in the UK, and effectively keep that person in their custody until they have reached the destination. Clause 9(2), which is the subject of Amendment 58A, then applies the relevant existing criminal offences in Section 27 of the Immigration Act 1971—which already apply to carriers who fail to act under instructions to remove a person under that Act—to instructions to remove a person under the powers set out in this Bill.
Lord German (LD)
We are discussing the issues raised in the previous group and I accept that the Minister wants to talk about them now. I also accept that there are provisions in existing law. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why, therefore, the Government need to put these provisions into the Bill if there is already legislation that stands by that. The difference that I can perceive is the requisitioning of services, particularly transport services. That may be slightly different from what we had before. If the Minister cannot say exactly why these provisions are needed, because they are already in existing powers, there is no point putting them into the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The powers in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act will continue to apply to those being removed who are not subject to the new duty in the Bill but are otherwise liable to removal from the UK. The powers in the Bill will relate to those who fall within the cohort in Clause 2. They provide clarity and certainty by being present in the Bill in this context. It is also clearly right that the 1971 Act powers need to be applied to the Bill, so that is the purpose for their inclusion. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I hope I conceded earlier that we know that there have been directions issued to captains and others since the 1971 Act; that is not in contention. My concern, given the greater controversy of a forced duty to remove people who have not even had a refugee claim considered, and given the larger numbers that the Government clearly anticipate in relation to this policy, is about some of the detail. The Minister said that we need greater clarity, but that greater clarity will bring greater concern. I personally do not remember all this deeming of legal custody and the criminalisation of transport workers, certainly not in the original 1971 Act. Maybe more of that has happened over the years.
I ask the Minister to go back to the issues of policy and principle, and not just to rely on the precedent of the creep of legislation forcing these duties on transport workers. Whether that creep has happened or not—I can see that it has—some of us are really concerned about where it has gone. He said that this has passed without comment or controversy but that is not the case, is it? Every so often, somebody dies while being removed because of the coercion and force that is necessarily involved. If the people using that force are not prison guards, soldiers or police officers, but just common or garden transport workers, there is a real concern and controversy. I would be very grateful if the Minister would address that as a matter of principle.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I do not agree with the noble Baroness that there is a substantive difference in the fact that the people being removed under the Bill have had their asylum claims rendered inadmissible, because under the present law categories of people have inadmissible asylum claims and they too are subject to removal. They have been subject to the powers in the pre-existing legislation, so I am afraid I do not accept the premise of her intervention.
I should add that we regularly read of instances where there is disorder on an aircraft or instances where a pilot is obliged to land somewhere; then the doors are opened and the police remove a person from the aircraft. That detention can be as simple as keeping the doors closed until the agents of the law arrive to remove the necessary people, and similarly on trains with electric doors. The effecting of the detention is not going to be overly burdensome on the operators as a result of these provisions.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I acknowledged that there were existing provisions but that the situation in which we now find ourselves is qualitatively different. It was a grave disappointment that there had not been sufficient consultation with those directly affected. There is no doubt that transport workers and transport providers have significant concerns. Even if the Minister is right in what he says, it would clearly have been appropriate to have some discussions, if only to allay those concerns. I am disappointed that he has not given a commitment to give further thought on this area.
I do not know whether it is by chance, but we happen to have the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, who is the Transport Minister, with us now. Perhaps some discussions could be facilitated, because I know that she has had representations on this issue. I will look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has said and consider whether this is an issue to which we will need to return. I withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Lister, would amend the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under section 95A of the Act, or to stop support under that same section.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 57C, I will also speak to Amendments 57D to 57G. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their support. These are very much probing amendments and I apologise that I did not make that clear in their explanatory statements. They are focused on the financial and accommodation support available to those deemed inadmissible but still resident in the UK, and on associated appeal rights.
I am grateful to the Refugee Council for its help with these amendments. Because they refer to existing legislation, the amendments are quite complex and, given their probing nature, I do not therefore intend to go into the details of what they would achieve. I am sure that will be a great relief to those who want to get to their dinner. Instead, I will explain the context of the amendments and then set out a list of questions for the Minister.
Despite the Government’s intention to deport large numbers of asylum seekers swiftly, the consensus outside government is that, in the absence of adequate third-country agreements, many of those deemed inadmissible will also be unmovable in reality as they cannot be returned to their country of origin, given that their asylum claims have not been assessed. This, according to the very helpful joint briefing we received from a large number of civil society organisations,
“will create a large and permanent population of people who will live in limbo at public expense for the rest of their lives, without any hope of securing lawful status”.
The Refugee Council, Refugee Action, Praxis and the No Accommodation Network describe it as “permanent purgatory”.
In the continued absence of the official impact assessment, the Refugee Council’s assessment estimates that by the end of the three years following the provisions coming into effect, between 161,000 and nearly 192,700 people will be living in this purgatory. They will not have the right to work—the subject of a later amendment —and will not be eligible for mainstream benefits or housing, and thus will be at great risk of exploitation and destitution.
Refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK are already at serious risk of exploitation. British Red Cross and UNHCR research found that people refused asylum face a particular risk of exploitation, as they have few support options. The research found evidence of people experiencing destitution, homelessness and various forms of exploitation, including sexual exploitation. The BRC warns that the number of people experiencing destitution and exploitation will increase if the Bill is implemented and if people deemed inadmissible to the UK asylum system are denied access to support.
According to the joint civil society briefing:
“The physical and mental health implications of this would be unprecedented”.
Health organisations have repeated this warning and the Royal College of Psychiatrists has underlined the serious harm to mental health that living in immigration limbo is likely to cause. The BRC reports, on the basis of its experience with those already deemed inadmissible, that living in limbo without adequate support has devastating impacts on people’s mental and physical health.
It is therefore crucial that we are clear as to what financial and accommodation support will be available to those living in limbo. Key here is what access they will have to Section 4, Section 95 or Section 98 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. I have a number of questions for the Minister that refugee organisations have not been able to get the answers to.
First, Section 4 of the 1999 Act is mostly used for supporting those who are destitute, having had their asylum claim refused, and where there is a barrier to them returning home. It can be provided only for accommodation and financial support combined, not for financial support alone. The guidance and regulations mostly reflect these circumstances. Is the Minister confident that the existing regulations for Section 4 will cover the circumstances of someone waiting for removal having had their asylum claim deemed inadmissible under the Bill, given that, for support purposes, they will be treated as failed asylum seekers?
Secondly, looking at the ASF1 that people need to fill in to apply for Section 4 support, it is not clear how someone would use it to apply for support when their claim has been deemed inadmissible. Given that the Bill could be in force this summer if the Prime Minister gets his wish, what plans does the Home Office have for updating the form?
Thirdly, as a result of the Bill it is likely that many more people will be reliant on Section 4 for accommodation and financial support. Currently, most asylum seekers are supported under Section 95, which is available to those awaiting a decision on their claim and facing destitution. Section 98 allows people who would otherwise be destitute to be supported pending a decision on their eligibility for Section 95 support. I said that this was a bit complicated, and I apologise. The equivalent does not exist for Section 4, which will become the main means of support. Are Ministers preparing to use the regulation-making power in Section 4 to create such a scheme? If not, what is proposed?
Finally, can the Minister clarify whether they intend to use the provision within the Immigration Act 2016 to repeal Section 4 and introduce a new Section 95A as a replacement? If the Home Office intends to make that change, when does it intend to implement the 2016 Act changes, and will there be consultation on the relevant regulations and guidance that will need to be put in place? Unlike Section 4 and Section 95, Section 95A decisions would not attract a right to appeal. Given that circumstances are now very different from when Parliament passed the 2016 Act and that it will be a completely untested system, will the Home Office accept an amendment that would create the ability to appeal a refusal or discontinuation of support?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I refer to the register of interests and my involvement with the RAMP project and Reset.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for tabling Amendments 57C to 57G to provide us with the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the level of support that will be provided for those declared inadmissible but who are unable to be removed from the country. I too am highly grateful to the Refugee Council for supporting us to probe this area of policy well, especially in the absence of an impact assessment.
Before I outline questions for the Minister, it is important to note that those deemed inadmissible will include not just those whose asylum cases would likely have been found valid but individuals who would not have qualified. In the absence of any return deals, this could leave the Government in the absurd position of needing to support at public expense those who could be appropriately returned to their own country.
The Government will also need to support those excluded from the asylum system, who of course could support themselves and their families through employment after gaining refugee status. Let us remember again that more than three-quarters of asylum cases assessed last year were found to be valid. Support will need to be indefinitely provided to these families, and every year this group will increase in number. I hope that these amendments, while raising technical issues, will also help us to understand the rationale behind this and the costs associated with this approach.
My noble friend excellently laid out the grave mental health impacts of being confined to a life of permanent precarity and inescapable destitution. I remarked at Second Reading that this amounts to the continuation of detention simply without walls. It is therefore vital to understand what level of financial and accommodation support will be provided to those living in this state-sanctioned situation. I will try to add complementary questions to those already posed, but there will inevitably be some overlap.
Currently, far more people are supported under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 than under Section 4. According to Home Office statistics, in the first quarter of this year, there were 11,662 applications for Section 95 support, compared with 642 under Section 4. The Bill before us will change that, as those people whose claims are declared inadmissible will, in most cases, not be eligible for Section 95 support and instead will need to rely on Section 4 to avoid destitution.
I will ask the Minister some questions. First, how will someone who is, in effect, banned from claiming asylum be able to apply for Section 4 support? It is not clear, as the current guidance for Section 4 states that those deemed inadmissible cannot apply on the grounds that there is no viable route of return to their own country as they are due to be removed to a third country. Individuals will also not be able to judicially review the inadmissibility decision and cannot demonstrate that they are taking reasonable steps to leave the UK, given that their country of origin may be unsafe, and they will not have permission to enter another jurisdiction. How will applications from those with inadmissible asylum claims therefore be treated when they apply for support?
Secondly, what will happen to those who have arrived since 7 March and are currently in receipt of Section 95 support—a number already in the several thousands? Will their asylum claims be immediately declared inadmissible, removing eligibility to Section 95 support in one fell swoop? Can the Minister clarify what assistance this group will be given to apply for Section 4 support, or will he commit to automatically transferring people to Section 4 support without requiring a further application? Finally, what assessment has the Home Office made of how many people will be supported under Section 4 in the months and years after the Bill has come into effect? I stress that, to support the effective scrutiny of the Bill, we must know how many families with children will be left solely reliant on Section 4 support.
This set of amendments highlights major questions which remain unanswered about how the Bill is intended to work in practice, beyond the mantra that people will be “swiftly detained and removed”. These are not needlessly prosaic questions to frustrate the passage of the Bill, but a genuine attempt to help those on the front line plan their operational response, which we heard the Minister say earlier was well under way in its planning.
As the Government know, the asylum support system plays a vital role in ensuring that those who would otherwise be homeless and destitute, and who are unable to work and support themselves, have access to basic accommodation and financial support. There is a debate to be had about what form that accommodation should take and how much the financial support should be, but that debate is meaningless if the system is inaccessible. If the system is not adapted to respond to the circumstances created by the Bill, tens of thousands of people could find themselves with no support. On top of the intolerable consequences that this will have for individuals and families, it will inevitably lead to local authorities, faith groups, communities and voluntary groups picking up the pieces.
We often find ourselves in moments of our lives needing to console ourselves and our loved ones that this stage is only temporary and that hope remains. I am constantly in awe of refugees who live with such instability but retain that sense of a brighter future. It is therefore only right that I close my comments by stating the obvious: there is a different way, where asylum seekers have their applications processed in an effective and timely manner so that hope, not desolation, remains a possibility.
This is my week for making apologies. I have to be in Durham very early tomorrow and trains up north are limited, so after dinner break business I will not be able to contribute on those things that I said I would. However, I expect my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark to be present and to speak, in his name, on those matters.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak after the right reverend Prelate. I make no apologies for supporting this group of amendments and I signed the stand part proposition to probe these issues, because they are of such great importance. I also make no apology for using the word “assessment” very frequently in what I am about to say. The Minister will gather that what I am after is some of the contents of the promised impact assessment before it eventually appears.
Clearly, the essence of the clause is to ensure that people get some support for accommodation and subsistence while they are in this world of being inadmissible but have not yet been removed from the country. The starting point here is: how many people are there likely to be in this situation? I have previously asked the Minister whether he thinks that people who are covered by the duty to remove will actually be removed quickly. In other words, will it be in six or nine months? An estimate will do. That is my first question, because it will give us a sense of the size of the problem that we are about to face. We would then be able to identify and understand how many people would therefore require accommodation and subsistence under Section 4.
In the absence of a government impact assessment as yet, the Refugee Council has done its own analysis. Based on the current 0.7% success rate of removing people under the inadmissibility rules, it has assessed that, by the end of the third year after the Bill has passed,
“between 161,147 and 192,670 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not have been removed”.
So that could be the size of the problem. We do not know what the Government think, because they will say that they do not recognise those figures. However, as the Government have not given us any figures, we have no means of judging that.
That group of people will then be without permission to work and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely. If you look at the size of that cohort and the amount of money that it will cost, you see that it will be between £4.9 billion and £5.7 billion in the first three years. That is based on the assumption that everyone deemed inadmissible would be awarded Section 4 support and that there would be few people who would not get it. The issue arises that, if you do not get it, you will be destitute. As the right reverend Prelate said, the destitute can get picked up by the voluntary sector. But, frequently, local government is picking up the pieces, using funds which are due for other things that should be going on in local authorities, so that they do not have families in absolute destitution on their doorstep.
On the assessment process—just to help the noble Lord—has there been an assessment of the numbers of those who will not qualify for Section 4 support? In other words, is there an estimate of how many would be left with no recourse to public funds and would become destitute? On the suspensive claims, will people who have made a suspensive claim be eligible to apply for Section 4 support? That is probably an easy one for the Minister to answer.
Has there been an assessment of the impact of this legislation on local government funding? Clearly, it would be useful for the Government to understand how much they are currently spending on picking up the pieces of those who are destitute, and how much that would cost if it were magnified by the numbers we have just been talking about. That is why there needs to be a risk assessment for those on no recourse to public funds indefinitely in terms of their vulnerability to exploitation and trafficking. Having no money and accommodation are the sorts of things which fuel the operation of criminal gangs in the United Kingdom.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 7th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (6 Jun 2023)
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I had got as far as “My L—” when I was interrupted. I am sorry, I do not mean “interrupted”: I mean when we heard the Motion that the House be resumed. It was not going to be a major speech—it still is not, although I could have spent the last half-hour working on it.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who dealt with the issues very comprehensively, and the Refugee Council, which has been so helpful in briefing us. I simply observe the irony of our debating state support in the context of state-inflicted detention.
Lord German (LD)
I apologise to the Committee for speaking twice, but of course this is Committee so I can do it again.
To reiterate some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, raised, this is an issue which you need to understand if you are to propose and manage this policy and move it further forward. “What happens next?” is not just a big question, it is of crucial importance to people and people’s lives. I will not repeat my statements about assessments, which are well made and obviously made all the time, but we have heard an exposition of this issue, which needs to be resolved. We need answers to those questions.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister for introducing this group of amendments, which concern the duty to remove those who are not detained, and their access to support because they would be otherwise destitute.
Clause 8 amends relevant legislation to provide support on the same basis as for those whose claims are declared inadmissible under Section 80A or 80B of the 2002 Act. My noble friend introduced her amendments in great detail. They would allow for appeals to be made on decisions around support. They would allow financial support to be provided where accommodation support is not needed. They would allow people awaiting decisions on accommodation support to be provided with interim accommodation. They make it clearer that if someone has not yet been removed from the UK, despite the duty from the Secretary of State to do so, they face a genuine obstacle. As my noble friend said, the Government must ensure that no one awaiting deportation faces destitution and danger.
Given the questions about the Government’s ability to actually remove people given the lack of returns agreements, what assessment have the Government made of the support that will be needed? We read in the newspapers that the Government are renting two more barges. Of course, the numbers the barges can accommodate will not touch the sides of the amount of accommodation that will be needed.
My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord German, asked a number of detailed questions, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who I suspect is getting his train as we speak. As the right reverend Prelate said, in practice it will be local authorities, faith groups and voluntary organisations which will be picking up the pieces if there is not adequate government support for people who find themselves in this position. I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 8 ensures that there is support available to individuals who would otherwise be destitute where their asylum claims have been declared inadmissible, pending their removal from the United Kingdom. It also seeks to incentivise those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible to comply with the arrangements to remove them from the UK, whether that be to their country of origin—where it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country. These provisions will support the overall objective of the Bill and ensure that those who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Pending their removal, we will ensure that we support those who are complying with arrangements for removal. I make no apology for introducing these measures to protect and preserve the integrity of our asylum and migration system.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for setting out her amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 57C and 57F seek to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under Section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which would take effect only if supporting provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 are brought into force. The Government keep these matters under review but I can answer the noble Baroness’s question directly: there are no current plans to bring those measures into force, and so we consider these amendments unnecessary. Therefore, those who are refused support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act will still be able to appeal the decision.
Similarly, we do not consider Amendment 57D necessary. As I have told noble Lords frequently throughout Committee, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove people. We expect that the overwhelming majority of those who fall within the scope of the duty to remove will need accommodation as well as financial support. These individuals will therefore be provided with financial support to meet their essential living needs, pending their removal from the UK.
Although I recognise the intention behind Amendment 57E, the Government do not consider it necessary to provide a statutory basis on which to provide temporary support. As I have said, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove those who enter illegally and meet the conditions in Clause 2. The details of how the scheme will work in practice, including the support provided during this interim period, are currently under active consideration. We are confident that there is sufficient scope to be able to provide adequate support to individuals pending a determination of their application under Section 4 of the 1999 Act. Obviously, we will bear in mind the contributions made during this short debate.
Finally, Amendment 57G seeks to amend uncommenced provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 and, in so doing, alter the long-standing position that Section 4 support would be available only to people who face a genuine obstacle in leaving the UK. The Government have no plans to implement the 2016 Act provisions in the immediate future; even if we were to do so, we see no need to alter the existing approach to eligibility under Section 4 for this group of people. Eligibility for Section 4 support is a long-standing position. As long as individuals whom we support pending their removal co-operate with the process, they will remain eligible for support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the train-bound right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked about the Section 4 application form. We are working on the arrangements for implementing these provisions. As part of that, we will consider what changes, if any, are required to the Section 4 application form.
Where necessary, the Government will provide accommodation and basic support for those who are subject to the duty to make arrangements for removal and who are not being detained pending their removal. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, I can assure him that, with the changes made by Clause 8, we consider that there is sufficient legislative cover to provide such support where a person would otherwise be left destitute. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate, in his absence; we know that he had to get his train. I am also grateful to the Minister for answering more questions than I expected him to be able to.
I am disturbed by the proposition that it is not necessary to provide a statutory basis for temporary support because the intention is to remove people quickly. The Government are the only people who think that removal will be quick. All the organisations on the ground predict a state of semi-permanent limbo—purgatory, as some of them have called it. There needs to be a proper statutory basis for the support that these people are provided with. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again.
Other noble Lords have asked questions that have not, I think, been answered. I would be grateful if the Minister or his officials could look through Hansard and answer any remaining questions. The noble Lord, Lord German, certainly asked a number of questions that have not been addressed. I will not detain the Committee now by pressing them—I am sure that the noble Lord will not either—but I ask that a letter answering those questions goes to the noble Lords who have participated in Committee before Report.
It would also be helpful if the Government published as clearly as they can a statement on what is proposed. We can piece bits together from the Minister’s reply today but the point has been made that local authorities, faith groups, refugee organisations and others need to start planning; they need to know. A clear statement would therefore be helpful.
I finish by quoting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who said that this is going to be like detention without walls. That is a very telling statement. It is important that we get this right. We do not want large numbers of people destitute on our streets because they are in this permanent limbo. I look forward to seeing what the Minister has to say in any subsequent letters but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Repeal of asylum seeker accommodation regulationsThe Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023 are repealed on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the repeal of the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) Regulations 2023.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this amendment relates to a statutory instrument that has recently been approved.
I appreciate that the issues of the use of houses in multiple occupation for asylum seekers and the changes in the standards applying to such houses for that purpose may not have crossed the inboxes of most noble Lords; they certainly had not crossed mine until I was told that the SI changing the regulations was scheduled and found myself scheduled to speak on it. Like many such instruments, it was considered in Grand Committee and then went through the House very quickly. The purpose of the instrument is to make provision to exempt accommodation provided by the Home Office for asylum seekers from licensing requirements; that sounds quite straightforward.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 58, which I put my name to, moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Hamwee just said: history is important. The catalyst for licensing HMOs in this country was a fire in 1981 in which eight individuals were killed and 100 residents of 56 bedsits were affected. Those who survived and those who died were all asylum seekers. That was the catalyst for the HMO licensing regime. That is where the campaign really started. The key issue for the introduction of the HMO licensing was to allow local authority housing enforcement teams to hold HMO landlords in their area to account for providing national minimum standards, and for local authorities to know exactly where HMOs were, so that they could be inspected effectively.
When the statutory instrument was in Grand Committee, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was very reassuring in telling the Committee that this had nothing to do with the dilution of standards and that it was all about speed to get houses for asylum seekers ready to go so that they could be housed. Speed can and does cut corners. It became quite obvious from the written answers we received to our questions in Grand Committee that the standards will be watered down, and in some cases will now be dangerous and potentially lead to fires and other issues that could cause fatalities. These are standards for homes, not houses but homes, for some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
There were 11 standards raised in Grand Committee, which included everything ranging from the electrical compliance of equipment to HMO landlords being fit and proper persons for those properties. Of the 11 standards, only one is either equivalent or better than the HMO licensing conditions. All the others are a dilution of the standards. For example, the licensing of HMOs minimum standards state that the electrical appliances and furniture supplied by the landlord must be maintained in a safe condition and that a declaration of safety for all electrical appliances and furniture must be supplied on demand by the authority. However, the Home Office equivalent asylum accommodation and support services contract states only that electrical appliances are required to be inspected once every five years. It says nothing about the condition of furniture.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 58. I am sorry that I could not be at the Grand Committee debate on the regulations because of another commitment. Given the representations that have been made by a range of an organisations, I felt it was important to say a few words.
All people should have access to secure, safe and decent accommodation, no matter what status they hold. While it is right that we should not have people housed in hotels for longer than necessary, the removal of so-called red tape, which potentially includes shortcuts around safety standards, as we have heard, seems exceedingly risky. Once again, we have been asked to put our trust in the Home Office and its subcontractors instead of properly resourcing local authorities to provide adequate housing. This is not the way to address the backlog or accommodation shortages. The speed of procurement should not come at the possible cost of life.
Earlier this month, while the Levelling-Up Secretary was unveiling new laws protecting renters’ rights, his colleagues were debating the Government’s intention to scrap HMO licensing for asylum seekers’ accommodation. That seems somewhat perverse. The Government state in their Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations that part of the rationale for the change was that subcontractors
“raised concerns that … regulation is posing a barrier to acquiring … properties”.
But the suspicion is that subcontractors’ concerns are motivated more by profits than by the need to reduce backlogs and move people into accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked during the Grand Committee debate, what evidence is there—again there is this question of evidence; it seems that with every amendment we are asking for evidence—to suggest that this change in regulations will speed up procurement of accommodation? The potential to undermine safety and standards seems very risky if there is not clear evidence to suggest that it will achieve the Home Office’s intended outcomes. Local authorities are concerned that any further erosion of enforcement powers will lead to a decrease in accommodation standards, where the reverse is needed.
The excellent briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Crisis, JCWI and others argued:
“The assertion from the Government that HMO licence levels of protection will be maintained in these properties, but overseen by the Home Office rather than the local authority, is deeply suspect. People are already losing their lives in asylum accommodation managed by private subcontractors on behalf of the Home Office”.
Echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it was alarming to read at the weekend that asylum seekers were left on the streets in Westminster for two nights running because of accommodation problems and that the Immigration Minister had led moves to require groups of up to four adult males to share single rooms in so-called Operation Maximise. Richard Drax, a Conservative MP, has equated this to putting them in prison. As the leader of Westminster Council commented, to ask people who are
“likely to have been through significant and traumatic events … to share an inappropriately sized room”—
we are talking about a single room here, not some palatial five-star room—
“with multiple strangers defies common sense and basic decency”.
Basic decency, as well as safety, is what is at stake with these regulations.
Can the Minister give us an assurance that Operation Maximise will be abandoned at once in the interest of basic decency? With regard to these regulations, can he reassure us that the Home Office or its contractors have the skills to make a proper assessment of the risks around fire safety that an experienced and qualified local authority environmental health officer would have?
In the recent debate in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked the Minister to confirm that the same conditions that apply to an HMO licence will be replicated in the contract with the provider of accommodation for those seeking asylum. I do not think that the noble Lord has asked this again tonight, but I hope he will forgive me if he has. As the DLUHC Minister was unable to answer the question because it related to Home Office responsibilities, perhaps the Minister could provide an answer now.
In conclusion, this amendment should have never been needed but, unless we get serious assurances around living and safety standards, I can only question how the Government have decided that creating unsafe homes and putting asylum seekers in them is a decent strategy. As the Chartered Institute of Housing has said, HMOs will undoubtedly prove cheaper, but at what cost?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, at its heart, is about the Government’s proposal to exempt housing for asylum seekers from licensing conditions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the two principal areas of concern, which have been the thread throughout this short debate. One is the conditions of the accommodation and the second is the impact on the rented housing sector in its entirety. I would add that the limited number of properties that are available in the private rented sector is in danger of impacting seriously on the number of houses for people who are looking for that accommodation but are not asylum seekers.
I will ask the Minister as well about the devolved responsibilities in this area, because the private rented sector in Wales is quite differently managed under Welsh Parliament legislation. I would like to understand whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations to find out how they propose to deal with this matter. In the case of Wales, all private rented sector accommodation is required to be licensed, not just HMOs. There is a strict regime and landlords pay for that licence. Clearly, that has had some impact on raising standards. That is an important issue, and if it is going to be reduced further, the Government need to explain why.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a better way forward, and mentioned the need for a more collaborative, non-regulatory approach. My noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that licensing provides protections, and I think we all understand that. He illustrated it by talking about smoke and CO2 alarms. The reduction in standards is implicit in the proposals that are contained in the statutory instrument. It seems to me that we need to have a proper inspection regime, as stated by my noble friend Lord Scriven. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of the safety of people being at risk. That is at the heart of all this. Are we going to put the safety of this vulnerable group of people at risk by returning to the original situation before the HMO legislation came into place? Are we going to manage the contractors properly and correctly? Clearly, the process of creating unsafe homes is not in anybody’s interest in this country at all, and neither is placing people within them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for moving this amendment. It was a good idea to address this issue in this context, even though it was fully addressed when the SI was debated. The Labour Party voted against the SI in the House of Commons, but it was not pushed to a vote in this House. Nevertheless, this is an appropriate Bill for us to address the issue again.
As we have heard, the regulations for HMOs were brought in following a fire in Notting Hill in which eight people died and almost 100 people lost their homes and possessions. Almost six years after that came the catastrophic fire in Grenfell Tower. These DLUHC regulations could lead to another fatal fire in an HMO used to accommodate people seeking asylum or other people in housing need. As we have heard from the briefings that we have all received—particularly the Shelter briefing, which was a particularly full briefing —people seeking asylum can be particularly vulnerable to fire risks, due to disabilities and health problems, being unaware of what standards to expect in a new country, being unable to read or speak England, and perhaps being reluctant, or less able, to complain to the authorities.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the gracious compliments paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to my noble friend Lady Scott, which I will pass on.
As the noble Baroness has explained, the amendment would prospectively revoke the Houses in Multiple Occupation (Asylum-Seeker Accommodation) (England) Regulations 2023. Those regulations, which have not yet been made, would amend the definition of “house in multiple occupation” in England for the purposes of Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004. The effect of the regulations is that accommodation provided on behalf of the Home Office for destitute asylum seekers will not require an HMO licence from a local authority for a specified period. The exemption will apply to properties that begin to be used as asylum accommodation from the point when the regulations come into force up to 30 June 2024, and last for a two-year period.
It is the Government’s intention with these measures to ameliorate conditions for asylum seekers. The regulations will support the rapid provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in local areas. I emphasise the urgency of this important reform, which forms part of a suite of measures to accomplish wider asylum delivery plans.
Many contributions—I noted in particular that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett—focused on the use of hotel accommodation for asylum seekers. There are over 56,000 asylum seekers currently living in contingency accommodation, mainly hotels. The reform will support the necessary steps being taken to accelerate moving asylum seekers out of hotel accommodation—which the Government accept is inappropriate, generally speaking, and furthermore is more costly—into more suitable and cost-effective accommodation.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I notice that in the statutory instrument there is no impact assessment. The Minister has just reiterated what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in Grand Committee, that this would speed up the number of properties coming on to the market for asylum seekers. As there is no impact assessment, could he tell us how many a year will come on to the market for asylum seekers that would not have done if these regulations were not made?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord asks a highly detailed numerical question, and he will not be surprised to know that I am unable to answer it from the Dispatch Box.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
We will do our best to provide one in short order in writing to the noble Lord, if that would be acceptable to the noble Baroness.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It would be acceptable to me, but time and time again, the noble and learned Lord has reiterated what was said in Grand Committee. Surely, that is something he should have asked for in meetings before standing at the Dispatch Box and giving that assurance to the Committee.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat that I will endeavour to provide an answer to the noble Lord.
The use of hotels as being inappropriate was a matter raised again by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in relation to Operation Maximise, and that was a scheme to use hotel rooms to accommodate asylum seekers. It is in order to move away from the use of hotels and provide more suitable accommodation that the Government are advancing these measures.
Asylum accommodation and support contract providers have identified existing licensing requirements for HMO properties as a challenge to swiftly making such accommodation available, in particular where local authorities apply licensing conditions that exceed statutory requirements, detracting from the viability of the property. The introduction of this exemption would mean that national standards apply uniformly to all new asylum accommodation, thus removing barriers to acquiring the more suitable and cost-effective accommodation, of which I was speaking, for housing asylum seekers and assisting in that aim of accomplishing dispersal of asylum seekers so the country bears the burden more evenly.
There were questions from a number of your Lordships —from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in opening, from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, responding for the Opposition—about whether these measures were intended to create lower standards. That is not the case. The Home Office accommodation contracts with our service providers set out clear minimum standards for all asylum accommodation. This is used to ensure compliance with standards similar to those used in local authority licensing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
We have answers that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, gave to us in writing after we had asked the questions. Of the eleven standards that questions were asked about, only one meets the requirements of the national HMO licensing conditions; 10 do not. Therefore, the standards are not similar to the HMO licensing. They are a dilution of standards in the HMO licensing system. Would the Minister not accept that is the case in light of the answers that the Home Office and DLUHC have already given to noble Lords?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
“Similar” does not mean “the same”. I will endeavour to answer questions raised by the noble Lord, but I would doubt whether the answers I am able to give will satisfy him as much as the answers to his own questions which he has already given.
All dispersal accommodation is required to meet the room and space standards in the Housing Act 1985 or the Housing Act 2004 as appropriate. Properties are also required to have at least one bathroom and one kitchen per five occupants as well as meet the statutory space standards, and this will continue in HMO licence-exempt properties and will be checked on inspection. I will come to the inspection regime in due course.
All dispersal accommodation is also required to meet a range of other standards, for example for effective fire safety risk assessments to be carried out and acted upon, and for gas and electrical safety to be properly certified. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, spoke eloquently about the genesis of such measures arising out of a tragic fire. I am able to advise the Committee that the Home Office is working with the national fire safety co-ordination centre in relation to fire safety provisions in such properties.
Compliance with these requirements will also be checked by the Home Office’s asylum support contract assurance team. All asylum seekers have access, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to an advice, issue reporting and eligibility service provided for the Home Office by Migrant Help, where they can raise any concerns regarding accommodation or support services. They can also get information about how to obtain further support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord German, raised the interaction of such properties with the provision of housing for homeless persons. The Government will do everything they can to mitigate the risk of homelessness, in support of the existing cross-government commitment to end rough sleeping within this Parliament and to fully enforce the Homelessness Reduction Act. To support this, while recognising the burden that local authorities are under, the Government will increase funding for local authorities to support asylum seekers and encourage councils to make properties available more quickly. To support local authorities this year, a one-off payment for each person accommodated on 1 April 2023 has increased from £250 to £750 per person. Councils will continue to receive £3,500 quarterly for each new dispersal bed made available thereafter during the financial year 2023-24. Payment will be made through the same grant process as used in 2022-23.
In addition, as part of a four-month pilot, to which we have had reference, councils will receive a further incentive payment of between £2,000 and £3,000 where a bed is made available within an expedited timeframe following identification. This almost doubles existing funding for those local authorities which take on new accommodation and do so quickly. The Home Office will also monitor any impact and will be conducting a full burdens assessment, working with the Local Government Association.
This brings me to the points raised by noble Lords on engagement with local authorities. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who particularly sought assurances about co-operation between central and local government on these matters. Home Office engagement with local authorities has increased significantly, and improved, since the introduction of an engagement strategy which is designed specifically to ensure that impacts on local services can be raised, discussed and mitigated through multi-agency forums.
The full dispersal team also currently meets every region at least once a month and some regions more regularly. These meetings are the key to driving delivery of regional dispersal plans. The Home Office engages regularly with local authority chief executive leads in a number of forums, including the asylum and resettlement council senior engagement group and the strategic oversight group. At these groups, HMO plans are being discussed alongside wider asylum and resettlement-related issues affecting councils across the UK. These are bodies within which the concerns raised in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and others can be raised.
The Home Office will also be arranging an open forum for local authorities to attend to provide local government colleagues with opportunities to discuss issues of concern with senior Home Office officials. Through its strategic oversight group, the Home Office is looking to set up a sub-group which will explore the issue of community cohesion with local authorities. This group would complement other work strands that are exploring related regional impacts.
On the subject of inspections, the Home Office is doubling the size of the current team in asylum support contract assurance to undertake additional inspections and other assurance work in response to the HMO licensing exemption. Inspections will be undertaken by housing health and safety rating scheme-qualified inspectors on all HMO properties that benefit from this exemption at least once in the two-year exemption period. This is in addition to the monthly inspections made by the accommodation providers themselves to ensure that the appropriate property standards are being maintained.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way again. I asked this in Grand Committee and do so again today: the doubling is a doubling, but what will the actual full-time equivalent be and what will it mean in terms of the average number per local authority area in England?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Again, the noble Lord asks a question of some detail and I will, with his leave, respond in writing. I appreciate his point that doubling from one to two is not significant. However, the Committee has heard me speak of the breadth of support and inspection that will be given and the expertise of those carrying out the inspections. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for nodding his assent; he can expect to receive a letter from the department in due course.
These regulations are subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said as much in introducing the debate. They have been considered and approved by this House and await approval by the House of Commons. They are subject to sunsetting provisions, as stated. They are an appropriate response to the short-term challenges we face accommodating asylum seekers.
The Home Office has put additional measures in place of a robust nature to ensure that housing quality is maintained to a national standard. In addition to the usual assurances via the terms of contracts entered into, an enlarged team of appropriately qualified inspectors will inspect each eligible property at least once during the exemption period, as I said to the noble Lord a moment ago.
I reassure the Committee once again that these regulations and the actions of the Home Office in drawing them up and moving this policy forward are informed by our consciousness of the terrible past tragedies which have overtaken people living in accommodation of this sort. We are all too well aware of the incidents the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, drew to the attention of the Committee, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, adverted in passing at the outset of her remarks. I offer to the Committee an assurance that we are aware of this and that the inspection regime we set up will, as much as is humanly possible, look to prevent such things happening again.
Lord German (LD)
I wonder if the noble and learned Lord could answer my question about the devolved Administrations and their licensing powers?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I beg the noble Lord’s pardon; I meant to answer that question and sought specific information from the Bill team on it. The regulations apply only to England and not to Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.
Finally, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to say very much. Many Members are waiting to consider the large number of amendments we are scheduled to get through tonight—whether we will or not, we will see.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his responses to the shedload of questions which came from this side. I was surprised that he started by saying that the regulations are intended to ameliorate conditions for asylum seekers, because it seems to everyone involved that it is about numbers and not better conditions. He has given assurances about engagement with local authorities, but it was the Local Government Association which particularly asked to be reassured about engagement, so this remains a live issue. He said that the lump sum of up to, I think, £3,500 would be paid in the circumstances he mentioned. I had understood from briefing that that was only for the pilot period of four months. Could he let me know after today if that is correct?
Finally, the noble and learned Lord mentioned Migrant Help. There have been a lot of tales over the last few months of people in hotels who have asked for some help from the contract providers who run the hotels or from other staff, and been told, “Oh, go and ask Migrant Help”. I do not think that it is quite the smooth process that was just suggested. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, as Amendments 61, 62 and 66 are consequential to Amendment 58B, I will speak to all three at the same time as moving it; they all sit together.
Currently, pursuant to Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs may detain people for immigration purposes only in places set out by her in a direction. Detention in places not specified by her in a direction will be unlawful. The Bill amends that direction to include
“any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
Following the publication of the Bill, the Immigration Minister in the other place outlined that the expansion of the asylum and migrant estate will include military barracks and that the Home Office will
“continue to explore the possibility of accommodating migrants in vessels”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/3/23; col. 1018.]
More recently, the Government announced plans to house 500 asylum seekers on a barge in Portland, off the coast of Dorset. It remains unclear whether these settings will also be used as detention facilities as the provisions of the Bill seek to give the Home Secretary the power to detain individuals in such places, despite the risks posed by facilities such as Manston, which I will come to later. Some of the further mooted facilities present additional risks of their own, with military bases potentially triggering pre-existing vulnerabilities in people who have likely fled war and/or persecution. Will the Minister explain the reasons for granting the Secretary of State the power to detain people in “any place” that she “considers appropriate”?
If the intention is to allow detention in places not currently set out in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021, will the Minister give details of where these places will be? For example, will the detention centres include military sites, such as Scampton in Lincolnshire, Wethersfield in Essex and Bexhill in East Sussex, or barges, such as the “Bibby Stockholm”, due to be moored in Portland? With the announcement this week by the PM of more barges to house asylum seekers, can the Minister advise on the cost of these, given that the aim has been to reduce money spent on accommodation, especially if some of this will be used for detention purposes?
Current Home Office plans suggest that these facilities are being considered for use as asylum accommodation only rather than detention. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government in fact plan to use them in whole, or part, as detention sites? If the intention is to allow detention in places not currently set out in the immigration direction of 2021, will the Minister explain how the Secretary of State will ensure that the standards set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and the Short-term Holding Facility Rules 2018 are met in relation to the treatment of detained persons, including the safeguarding of vulnerable people known to be at particular risk of suffering harm in detention, such as victims of torture and trafficking, pregnant women and those with serious mental health conditions? What legal framework will exist to ensure these standards in such places? Are we to expect regulations and, if so, will we see them in draft before the Bill is completed? Has the Home Office carried out a full risk assessment linked to the proposed expansion of the detention estate and will it be published? How will the Minister seek to avoid scenes such as those at Manston, described by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration as “wretched”, if there is no extra detention capacity when the Bill passes?
It is interesting to note that, just this week, we have had the publication of the report of the unannounced inspection of Manston by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. I am sure Ministers have seen his comments. They are clearly concerning, and I shall briefly mention four priority areas: detention in the facilities was too long; the governance of adult and child safeguarding was poor; there was no accurate data on the use of force or separation from the general population or of incidents of violence and non-compliance; and professional interpretation was not always used consistently. There is a danger that Manston will not be able to cope any better than it was coping when the disturbances took place there more than 12 months ago. The response to the report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons is therefore important, to show that the Home Office will ensure safeguarding and care for individuals, which is not currently present.
According to Charlie Taylor’s report, there is no oversight of leadership and safeguarding, or of the use of force. These are incredibly important issues in places of detention. Care planning for vulnerable detainees and children with disabilities was poor and did not demonstrate individual planning, risk assessment or meaningful welfare checks.
Given the responses that we see about the current detention regime in this very recent report from His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, how does the Minister expect to provide new and extra accommodation, given the challenges the Government are already facing, across the country, from many Conservative MPs, for example, who do not want these in their backyards—not in the run-up to an election, I understand? Can the Minister tell us whether barges are really suitable places for the detention of families and children?
Amendment 62 would place the Secretary of State under a duty to consult local residents before authorising the use of any new facility within these categories. This is critical for community cohesion and well-being. Removing someone’s liberty is a deeply serious issue and we are extremely concerned about the consequences of this clause for the most vulnerable in our society, particularly children, torture victims, pregnant women and victims of modern slavery. It seems to us that the Home Secretary is moving far beyond the sorts of powers necessary to detain people in an appropriate manner, and this manner at the moment gives us minimal recourse to scrutiny.
The lives, liberty and well-being of fellow human beings should not be put on the line as collateral damage for a policy which most of us know will never achieve its stated aims but is being used for political appeasement. For the reasons I have outlined, I also oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 58B.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59B, 61A, 64B, 66A and 79C in my name.
Amendments 61A and 66A would ensure that, if children are to be detained or held in temporary accommodation before they are placed with a local authority, there are basic standards in the Bill to ensure that the type of accommodation is suitable, along with the services and standards that are needed to ensure that the best interests and the welfare of the child are paramount, and that the provisions are exactly the same as in the Children Act 1989.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have only two questions to put to the Minister. I reinforce the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord German.
First, I ask the Minister directly about the issue of capacity. I also want to ask him about the role of the Independent Family Returns Panel. Dr Peter Walsh says that the current detention estate has capacity for about 2,500 individuals, yet we all know that last year 45,000 people arrived on our shores. In addition, there are 160,000 asylum seekers still awaiting decisions. If we take those numbers together, how do they square with the capacity that is planned for the estate? I was also struck by the Taskforce on Victims of Trafficking in Immigration Detention saying:
“We expect that tens of thousands of individuals will be indefinitely detained in immigration detention facilities, with the current already overstretched detention estate being unable to hold anywhere near the numbers anticipated”.
My second question is brief. I am concerned about the disapplication of the duty currently placed on the Secretary of State to consult with the Independent Family Returns Panel in every family returns case, particularly where the family involves children. Has the Minister seen the statement from the UK Committee for UNICEF, which has described this decision for disapplication as “regrettable”? Is that something he might give further thought to?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I want to make two quite separate points. I pick up on what the noble Lord just said; have the Government looked at what is really happening on the ground, the numbers of people currently waiting to be removed—that is a very large number—and the numbers coming in? How on earth are they going to get people away? Where they are going and what is going to happen was set out in much greater detail on an earlier amendment.
What worries me as I have sat listening, today in particular but really throughout the debates on the Bill, is that I do not think the Government have yet put their mind to the problems of numbers and how on earth they are going to get rid of these people, if I may put it rather bluntly.
The second point, which is so much more important, relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just said, and I not only support him but admire him enormously for saying it. As I said on another Bill some time ago, I remind the Government that the Home Secretary is not a corporate parent, nor indeed at the moment is the Secretary of State for Education. The concept of the corporate parent is to be found in the Children Act 1989, as a local authority. Currently, the Government are expecting to deal with sometimes quite young children. I think they are concentrating on the 16 and 17-year-olds who are coming through and are not looking at a minority—but probably a relatively substantial minority—of children who are much younger. They have to be looked after. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, but it is crucial that they be looked after. The only corporate parent who can care for them is in fact the local authority where the children are. It is about time the Government started to look at not just the best interests of the children, which is so obvious—it worries me that I keep having to talk about that—but the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made, which really should strike home.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I support Amendments 61 and 62 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, and welcome the opportunity to discuss what rules and regulations His Majesty’s Government will adhere to when selecting a site for the purposes of detention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham had intended to speak but is unable to be here for this group of amendments; I am glad to be here in his place. I am grateful to Medical Justice for sharing how existing legislation governs both the nature and operation of detention centres. As it is a detailed policy area, I will focus my time on the context for these amendments while also posing questions to the Minister.
First, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham explained at Second Reading, the Bill before us changes the nature and scope of detention considerably. It moves detention away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a punitive system of incarceration intended thereby to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the United Kingdom. Deterrence, as we have seen, is a key theme stressed by the Government, albeit no evidence or impact assessment has been adduced in its favour. This shift towards incarceration signals a major transition in policy, but in embarking on this shift in the purpose of detention, the Government leave us with a lack of detail on what rules and guidance will be adhered to when the Secretary of State is selecting a place of detention.
However, the Minister replied on 26 May to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Written Question that individuals can be detained for immigration purposes only
“in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021”.
I know that the right reverend Prelate was grateful for that answer. Furthermore, the Minister stated:
“All Immigration Removal Centres … must operate in compliance with the Detention Centre Rules 2001, this includes any additional sites that are opened as IRCs to increase detention capacity”.
Can the Minister therefore say whether it will remain unlawful for the Government to authorise places of detention outside those specified in the direction?
Secondly, will the Minister explain how the power granted by Clause 10 to the Secretary of State to detain people
“in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
marries up with the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021? The Minister may understand my concern that the power to deprive a person of their liberty, and how and where someone is detained, should be constrained by law and not the discretion of a Minister of the Crown, or anyone else.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 69 is in my name. I am very grateful to those who have co-signed it: the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.
The amendment provides for a general standard or series of standards to be applied—to some extent, picking up some of the more specific points that have been raised by other Members of the Committee. The amendment says:
“The conditions under which persons are detained pursuant to this section must comply with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Detention Guidelines”.
This becomes particularly important in the context of this proposed legislation because there is no time limit currently provided for detention. Indeed, earlier today, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, made great play of the fact that currently Rwanda is the only country in Schedule 1 which has actually signed up to admit people and therefore the rest of the people are not going to be accommodated by way of a removal.
People who are not suitable to go to Rwanda, which, according to the FCDO’s travel guidelines, would certainly include LGBT people, would be subject to indefinite detention until some other arrangement—if and when, if ever—with a truly safe place for that group was arrived at.
The UNHCR’s refugee Detention Guidelines currently set out, in guideline 8, some 18 minimum conditions of detention. They range from general propositions on treating asylum seekers with dignity to conditions around medical treatment; the ability of persons resident in detention to make contact; physical exercise; for children, education and vocational training; standards of food; and so forth. We certainly know that, on the ground at the moment, those standards are not being adhered to in the accommodation currently being occupied by those who seek asylum.
The time has come—particularly in view of the possibility of detention without any limit whatever; although that issue is going to be dealt with in a later group, I might add that it is in itself contrary to guideline 6 of the UNHCR’s refugee Detention Guidelines —when the Government must commit themselves to the minimum recognised standards that apply to asylum seekers. As others have said, we are not just dealing with numbers—number 1,231, for example. Each of these cases is a human being deserving of dignity and proper treatment.
Those are the minimum standards set down in guideline 8. I would like to know whether it is the Government’s proposal that they should adhere to these minimum standards.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I rise in support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, whose Amendment 69 I have signed. It would require detention conditions to comply with those set out in guidelines by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I need not repeat the arguments that the Committee well understands about the United Kingdom’s historic role in the refugee convention and other aspects of the post-war human rights settlement.
Like many noble Lords in this Committee, I have been in these debates for some time, so I understand that there is some dispute on the Government Benches about the UNHCR. The UNHCR says something; they say, “So what? It is just another woke NGO”. Well, it is not. The UNHCR has a special role in the convention. It is a UN body and it was given a special role in the supervision of the refugee convention.
I simply refer noble Lords to Article 35 of the convention, headed “Co-operation of the national authorities with the United Nations”. We were an architect of the convention and a key signatory to it; I am sure that every Member in this Committee wants to abide by it. Article 35 states:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention”.
This body was given from the beginning the very special role of supervising the convention. That is fair enough, is it not? It cannot just be that every nation gets to interpret the convention in its own way; that would not exactly be global governance.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Is that not precisely what the Vienna convention on the interpretation of treaties provides for: that each nation interprets it? States have to relate to and deal with the body to which the noble Baroness refers, but that is separate to the legal question of what the convention actually means. These are two distinct legal questions, are they not?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Well done. Article 35 continues:
“In order to enable the Office of the High Commissioner or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, to make reports to the competent organs of the United Nations, the Contracting States undertake to provide them in the appropriate form with information”.
The bottom line is that the UNHCR is not just any other body, think tank, NGO or pressure group. It is a specific organ of the United Nations that was commissioned right at the beginning, when this convention was drafted, to have a special role in its supervision. That is why I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in suggesting as a bare minimum that our detention provisions ought to comply with guidelines—they are only guidelines—set out by the UNHCR. We can have these lovely little Oxford Union interventions from Members opposite, but the bottom line is that if we do not comply—
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am sorry, but this is not an Oxford Union intervention. There is a clear distinction between an obligation to co-operate with a body in the implementation of the convention and that body having a role in the interpretation of the convention. They are different legal concepts and, with great respect, the noble Baroness knows that; it is quite wrong to elide one with the other. “Interpretation” does not appear in Article 35 and is deliberately excluded.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am very grateful, obviously, to the noble Lord for his intervention. I repeat:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.
This was the body given special status in the drafting of the very precious convention that was drafted with key instigation by the wartime generation in this country for reasons that I need not repeat.
If we do not comply with guidance from the UNHCR in relation to the detention of asylum seekers and refugees, who will? For that reason alone, I am very glad to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 70A in this group is in my name and also signed by my noble friend Lord German. It is focused on the protection of unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery. Picking up on the theme from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I want to make a brief reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 22 on refugee children says if a child is seeking refuge or has refugee status Governments must provide them with appropriate protection and assistance to help them enjoy all the rights in the convention.
There is consistent medical evidence that immigration detention is damaging the mental health of those who are detained. This Bill now forces children to be detained beyond the very short period which has been about acceptable before, although it was good that during the coalition years we stopped children being held in detention.
People seeking asylum have a very high prevalence of pre-existing vulnerabilities, including serious mental health conditions and histories of being trafficked, tortured and suffering sexual and gender-based violence. This puts them at particular risk of being further harmed in their time in detention.
The health implications of this Bill to detain people anyway without adherence to particular standards was highlighted by the events at Manston. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has mentioned, it had a capacity of 1,600 but last autumn it was overcrowded, with the number of people detained nearing 4,000 following a decision by the Home Secretary not to send people on to hotels. People were beyond the 24-hour time limit without clear lawful basis for detention in holding rooms or five days in holding facilities.
My noble friend Lord German referred to the recent reinspection of Manston, but it is worthy of note that Charlie Taylor said there seemed to be some improvements while it was “fairly empty” but that he
“was not assured that if numbers increase … the site will be able to cope much better”
than last autumn, which is why I wish to persevere with my amendment. Conditions at Manston deteriorated very quickly and are likely to have amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, including overcrowded living conditions, unclean and unhygienic facilities, inadequate food provisions—some days without sufficient food or drinking water—lack of adequate medical care and spread of infectious diseases.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to ask this question in the next group, but it is more appropriate to ask it here. It was raised by Doctors Without Borders in its damning briefing: what specific care will be provided for children with pre-existing or emergent health needs?
Also, following on from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I have been in correspondence with the UNHCR about the different interpretations of the UN convention and the refugee convention that came up when I asked on our first day in Committee why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body which has global responsibility for it. The Minister was rather dismissive of the UNHCR, which, in response, highlights that its position on the Illegal Migration Bill—one diametrically opposed to the Government’s—is that it will go against the obligations under the refugee convention. The UNHCR’s institutional position has been conveyed to the Government in the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 35. It does not accept that this is a legitimate interpretation of the refugee convention.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 69 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others. My intervention is prompted by a meeting I had earlier today with the disabled Greens group, specifically on the question of meeting the needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees. That caused me to look up the details of the UNHCR Detention Guidelines, specifically point 9.5, which says that states may be required to make reasonable accommodations to ensure that they meet the specific needs of disabled asylum seekers. It says:
“As a general rule, asylum-seekers with long-term physical, mental, intellectual and sensory impairments should not be detained”,
and that accommodation needs to be accessible.
The disabled Greens raised with me their particular concern about the barges, about which the Government seem very enthusiastic and to which they have been paying a great deal of attention. It is difficult to see how those barges could possibly meet the accommodation requirements of disabled asylum seekers.
A number of noble Lords referred to the historic situation at Manston, but we have seen the Chief Inspector of Prisons expressing great concern about what is happening there right at this moment. The focus has very much been on children but, if we are not able to identify and assist children appropriately, I really wonder whether we are also able to identify and assist refugees with disabilities, who may have specific needs. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that they meet the needs of asylum seekers with disabilities?
Finally, without in any way daring to intervene in a discussion between two lawyers on a fine technical point, I just note that Article 35 of the convention, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, says that:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.
The relationship does not look much like co-operation at the moment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I rise again to make a point that really should not have to be made. I made the point on a previous group that we are a dualist state where international law is not part of domestic law unless and until it is so incorporated by this Parliament. Later, perhaps in a question, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, rather poured scorn and said that this was some sort of technical dualist point. It is not a technical dualist point; it is a fundamental part of our constitution.
Another fundamental part of our constitution is that, when we sign up to international treaties such as the Vienna convention, we have to look at what they actually say. This is not an Oxford Union debating point for two reasons: first, it is far more important than that; and secondly, I have never been a member of the Oxford Union. Article 31 of the Vienna convention, on the interpretation of treaties, says:
“A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose”.
Each state therefore has to interpret its obligations under a treaty.
Some treaties, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, have a court attached to them. If you sign that treaty and sign up to the court, you are obliged to abide by the rulings of the court, in so far as those rulings emanate from the treaty. For example, Article 46.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides that the UK has to abide by any judgment given against the UK by that court. That is what we signed up to in the treaty. The refugee convention does not have a court attached to it. Therefore, this country, like every other, has to interpret the treaty bona fide—in good faith.
What, then, is the position of the UNHCR? It is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, read out from the treaty, but it is not the gloss that she put on it. The word “interpret”, which she used in her speech, does not appear in the treaty. That is not an accident, because the states were not going to give the UNHCR the power—[Interruption.] I will give way if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, wants to make an intervention; otherwise, I cannot hear her.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, does not want to take that opportunity, I would quite like to. The noble Lord makes the point that Article 35 of the refugee convention does not have the term “interpretation”, but it does say, as the noble Baroness quoted:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the … High Commissioner … in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.”
I suggest that that is not a million miles from assisting in the common interpretation of the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. Acoustics are not always with me. I literally read from Article 35 and so did not use “interpret”. I used words such as “co-operate”. I think that I might have said “supervise”—I believe there is a supervisory jurisdiction. At this late hour, I really do not think that this should be a great beef between lawyers. I just say that there is a duty to co-operate with the UNHCR, and it has a special position as an organ of the UN that we set up. That is why I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that our detention policies ought to have serious regard to the guidelines from the UNHCR.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I may have misheard, but I thought I heard “interpret”. I think that other noble Lords did as well. The Official Report will make it clear, no doubt. With great respect to the noble Baroness, in legal terms there is a million miles between a duty to co-operate and giving that other party the right to interpret. There is a huge difference between this country as a state saying that the treaty means whatever the UNHCR says it means and, on the other hand, saying that we will co-operate with the UNHCR to enable it to fulfil its obligations under the treaty but we as a state arrogate and retain the right to arrogate to ourselves in good faith and bona fide what that treaty actually means. It may sound like one is drawing fine distinctions but there is a very clear distinction, as lawyers will tell you, between the right to interpret a document, whether that be a contract or a treaty, and co-operation in the implementation of whatever that contract or treaty means.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Lord is a good lawyer and I am not, and I know that time is pressing on. However, it says more than just that we should co-operate with the UNHCR. It asks contracting states to facilitate the UNHCR’s
“duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention”—
I emphasise “supervising”. I do not know how that terminology was arrived at but it is saying more than that the UK must co-operate with the UNHCR. The UNHCR has a sort of supervisory duty, and I think that is more than what the noble Lord is saying.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not focusing on the supervisory duty. For these purposes it does not matter whether we have a duty to co-operate once a month or once a day, or to get in touch with it every half an hour. That is just on the scale of the nature of the co-operation duty. My point, and I submit that it is a fundamental one, is that there is a difference in essence—a conceptual distinction—between a co-operation duty with the UNHCR as to whatever the treaty means and agreeing that whatever the UNHCR says the treaty means is what it means. It is not an accident that interpretation was excluded from Article 35. Having made that point about five times, I will sit down.
Lord Etherton (CB)
Perhaps I could just add to all of this. I am sorry to do so; it is a bit unseemly for the lawyers to start arguing among themselves but I think I ought to record that I do not agree with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the effect of Article 31 of the Vienna convention means that this country or any country can give to such a refugee convention any meaning it wishes to. It has to apply, under Article 31 of the Vienna convention, the wording of the refugee convention, bearing its ordinary meaning in the context of what it proposes.
This is a sideline. The Committee needs to concentrate on what the role of the UNHCR is. I think that it is perfectly obvious to virtually everybody that it has a special supervisory role under the refugee convention, as interpreted in accordance with the Vienna convention, in the application and the practical application of the refugee convention. What I was talking about in my amendment, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was giving due weight to such a body. There is no other body that has that role. This body does, and it has been given by the United Nations.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am slightly nervous to stand up here. On a serious point, I want to say a few brief words in support of the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 58B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, Amendment 60, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and Amendment 69, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Etherton, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and others.
In the interests of being brief, I will try to cut through to what I think is the fundamental issue. This group is about standards in detention. The reason this raises such concern, which I think the Minister should address, is that new subsection (2I), as inserted by Clause 10, as has been mentioned by others, says:
“A person (of any age) detained under sub-paragraph (2C) may be detained in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
That is a huge power to give to the Secretary of State: to allow the detention of people arriving since 7 March, of any age, in any place. It is perfectly legitimate, and summarises all the amendments and all of the comments —I will not go through them all, and if I have got this wrong then people can intervene and I will apologise—for noble Lords to ask the Minister what that actually means in practice.
I thought that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, cut to the chase. If that is the situation, how are those standards going to be maintained? What actually are those standards? Are the standards the same in a barge or in a military camp? These are the sorts of details that the Committee would wish to hear from the Minister. What are the standards, given that it can be any age and in any place? What difference will there be between arrangements for unaccompanied children, families and others? This is particularly important because the power in new subsection (2C) is not actually for people who have been definitely determined as being people we would wish to remove; it is that the immigration officer “suspects”. We are talking about the detention of individuals, maybe children, who we suspect.
That leads us into the next group. However, if we are talking about standards, this becomes particularly relevant. We are talking about people who might actually be regarded as legitimate and eligible asylum seekers, even under the criteria of this Bill.
In order to be brief, I think noble Lords are seeking an answer to the question posed by new subsection (2I). A significant extension of power to the Secretary of State to designate any place for somebody of any age demands that the Minister be very clear about what the standards will be in each of those places, and who will monitor them to ensure that those standards are kept to.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments bring us on to the issue of detention. The amendments in this group look at the standards of detention accommodation and seek to impose certain minimum standards in respect of accommodation and the treatment of detained individuals.
As I have repeatedly made clear, we need a new, radical approach if we are successfully to tackle the people smugglers and put an end to the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary small-boat crossings of the channel. The scheme provided for in the Bill needs to be unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you will be liable to detention and swiftly returned to your home country or sent to a safe third country. I want to make clear that the welfare of those who are detained is of the utmost importance. We will detain families and children, including unaccompanied children, only when it is necessary to do so and in appropriate accommodation with appropriate healthcare provision.
Amendments 61, 61A, 62, 66A and 69, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Scriven, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, deal with the issue of accommodation standards and limiting the place of detention. I assure noble Lords that persons detained under the powers conferred by the Bill will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation that meets appropriate standards.
We detain persons for immigration purposes only in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021 in accordance with the long-standing provisions of the Immigration Act 1971, at paragraph 18 of Schedule 2. In answer to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, following Royal Assent we will update that direction in line with the new detention powers. Moreover, we already have robust statutory oversight of immigration detention, including inspection by the prisons inspectorate and independent monitoring boards at every detention facility, and effective safeguards within the detention process that, I submit, are sufficient.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson made some powerful points about the application of the international instruments to the question of detention standards, and clearly made the point that the UNHCR was expressly not given the right to issue determinative interpretations of the convention. It is up to states to interpret its terms in good faith, as we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also has Amendments 59B, 64B and 79C in this group, which seek to transfer certain powers in relation to the detention and accommodation of unaccompanied children from the Home Secretary to the Secretary of State for Education. To be clear, the noble Lord referred to the temporary housing of unaccompanied children in Home Office-provided accommodation prior to their transfer to the care of a local authority. Such accommodation is not detained accommodation and is therefore not caught by the provisions of these clauses. I assure the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we will return to this issue when we reach Clause 15.
The immigration functions provided for in the Bill are properly a matter for the Home Office. As noble Lords would expect, we regularly consult and work with the Department for Education on matters impacting on children, and that will continue to be the case in respect of the powers conferred by the Bill as they impact on unaccompanied children. As I have said, these are matters that properly fall within the purview of the Home Secretary and, as such, the functions to which these amendments relate should be exercised by her.
In relation to Amendment 70A which is specifically on the health and well-being of detained individuals, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that we will work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that there are proper provisions for children in detention, and we will build on our current detention facilities to ensure that they are appropriate and provide safe and secure accommodation for children. The statutory guidance referenced in the noble Baroness’s amendment would not be applicable where someone is detained, but we will ensure that all relevant policies that relate to detention will continue to apply.
All persons entering detention are medically screened on arrival and have access to round the clock healthcare. This will continue to be the case. The existing adults at risk in immigration detention policy will be updated in line with the Bill and will continue to act as a safeguard for vulnerable persons in detention.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, asked about our plans to increase detention capacity. We are increasing our detention capacity to ensure we have enough detention space, and we already have plans in place to build two new immigration removal centres. These include developing a new immigration removal centre in Oxfordshire on the former site of Campsfield House and a new immigration removal centre at Gosport in Hampshire on the former site of Haslar.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If the central tenet of the Bill is to deter people from coming to the UK, why are the Government expanding detention centres?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can imagine the noble Lord’s response if we did not expand detention centres. The point is that, as a matter of government planning, we need to have sufficient capacity to ensure that we can detain and swiftly remove those who enter the country illegally, in particular those embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel.
Change will not happen overnight, but we are committed to making this legislation work. We are working to find other solutions to scale up our detention capacity too. The first step is to change the law, which is why we are focusing on getting this Bill through Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, raised a related point, suggesting that large numbers would need to be detained in the absence of returns agreements. I remind him that in addition to our partnership with Rwanda we have returns agreements with 16 countries and that, as I have indicated, a returns agreement is not a prerequisite to our ability to remove people. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords about our commitment to maintain appropriate standards of detention accommodation and to provide appropriate care for those held in detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to withdraw his Amendment 58B.
Amendment 79C intends to ensure that the Secretary of State for Education has responsibility for unaccompanied children as soon as they arrive in the UK. I suggest that the amendment does not in fact have this effect. It places no duty on the Secretary of State for Education to have any responsibility for arriving children. It would give the Department for Education the power to provide accommodation but not a duty to do so. At this stage the children are already in the Home Office system and the Home Office has pre-existing duties under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 towards those children. The Home Office also runs existing relevant mechanisms such as the national transfer scheme. It is a matter for the Government as to which department should operate these powers.
This amendment could create a great deal of legal uncertainty, which is not in the best interests of children. For example, where children were not accommodated by a local authority on arrival, the Home Secretary could not use her powers under Clause 16 to move children into local authority placements quickly unless those children were in DfE-run accommodation, which DfE would be under no duty to provide. That uncertainty continues with regard to the application of Clause 19 and how any accommodation power linked to a government department that operates in England only could be applied to the devolved Administrations. For that reason, I invite the noble Lord not to move that amendment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I asked whether confirmation could be given that the Government will adhere to the 18 minimum conditions in the UNHCR Detention Guidelines. It would be very helpful for the Committee to know specifically which ones they intend to comply with and which they do not.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already indicated, the standards that will be adhered to are those prescribed already in legislation. While the points set out in the UNHCR’s document map on in some respects, there is no exact overlap. The regime which will be applied is that which I have already described.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I wonder if I could ask the Minister two questions. The first relates to his comment before last to my noble friend Lord Scriven about whether the Secretary of State for Education should be the corporate parent for government, as opposed to the corporate parent being local authorities. In the event where there is a delay after a child has arrived before a local authority is allocated to be the corporate parent, who is the corporate parent for that child? The Home Secretary does not have that power; there is no protection and no oversight. I say this in light of the fact that, in Kent, there is a special arrangement for Kent not to be the corporate parent for all unaccompanied minors that have arrived there, for fairly obvious reasons. The concern would be that that child might not get the protection that it needs. That is the first question, which is completely separate to the one on my Amendment 70A.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about appropriate healthcare, but without knowing what appropriate healthcare is and whether it meets standards that have been set out—even if he says that the guidance would not work—I am somewhat at a loss. Could he write to me to set out exactly what those standards were, because many doctors are extremely concerned about the current standards available for children in detention at the moment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, certainly. In response to those two points, as the noble Baroness will have seen, we will discuss this again when we reach Clause 15. But Clause 15(1) provides that the Secretary of State may provide or arrange for the provision of accommodation in England for unaccompanied children. As the noble Baroness rightly identifies, presently in Kent there is an agreement which works well. Initial reception facilities are provided by Kent County Council as the corporate parent, then any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are transferred within the national transfer scheme. Obviously, it is sensible to have the powers in Clause 15(1) as a backstop, in the event that those powers might be needed. I hope that therefore provides a complete answer to the noble Baroness’s first question.
In relation to the second part of her question as to the standards, as I hope I have already made clear, we will be applying the standards that presently remain. It is abundantly clear that those standards are very detailed as set out. I would be happy to write to the noble Baroness to outline what they are. We will definitely be able to provide that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the noble Lord with regard to the first issue. I wondered if there was actual data on the time that it takes to provide that transfer for children. What I am concerned about is the gap; we may be discussing it later, but the noble Lord raised the issue himself. Could he provide me with a letter that shows exactly how long it takes to get that transfer through, because I am hearing that there are gaps?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Because the powers in the Bill are obviously not yet in force, I cannot answer as to whether there would be a gap. But clearly it is anticipated—it is hoped—that there will not be a need to utilise the powers in Clause 15 routinely, because the situation with respect to Kent and other relevant local authorities should provide an answer. I am afraid that the noble Baroness cannot expect me to look into my crystal ball and predict what the situation will be after the Act is implemented.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am really sorry to prolong this. The noble Lord referred to the national transfer scheme. There is a concern that either it is taking some time or some children are not being transferred; they are, at the moment, without a corporate parent. There must be current data. That is why I ask: what is the normal gap and how many children have not been allocated?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very happy that the noble Baroness has asked me that question. I am delighted to say that, as of yesterday, there are zero children in Home Office UASC hotels. They are all in the care of local authorities. I hope that provides a fairly clear answer to her question. Perhaps I can invite the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to intervene.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. My question rather builds on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been asking. Earlier I specifically asked about the disapplication of the duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the independent family returns panel and the criticism that has been made by the UK Committee for UNICEF, which said that it regretted that decision. I asked the Minister if he would give further consideration to that point and think further about the safeguards that it enables to be put in place to deal with the kinds of issues the noble Baroness has put to him.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry that I did not answer that question. The relevant provision is in Clause 13 of the Bill. We will come to discuss it in the 11th group of amendments. Perhaps that might be the moment to explore those detailed points more thoroughly.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, may I press the Minister on the issue of disabled asylum seekers? I raised this specifically in terms of what is happening in general provision, what is happening at Manston, how the Government foresee—or not—disabled asylum seekers being accommodated on barges and whether they foresee provision in the new arrangements under this Bill complying with UNHCR detention guidance for disabled asylum seekers.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness raises an important point. It is obviously right that our guidance reflects the special needs of disabled people in accordance with our duties under the Equality Act. That will continue to be the case. I hope that provides some reassurance for the noble Baroness.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, not least because I have seen two lawyers agreeing with each other after having a debate of 10 or 15 minutes about a point of law. It is a fascinating experience.
To turn back to the amendments before us, I thank everyone who participated. In the response the Minister just gave, there are a number of matters which I would like to ask him about. If I understood correctly, he said it is the intention to only allow detention in line with the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021. I think that is what the Minister said. He then immediately said that, after this Bill is enacted, we will amend it—we will uprate it. I do not quite understand what the uprating mechanism is and why you need to uprate a direction you presently agree with. It would be helpful if the Minister could say what he means by uprating and if they are following the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021—which, I acknowledge, is the right thing to do.
On Campsfield and Gosport, the Minister said that the capacity would be increased. Could he give an indication of the numbers of places there will be in each of those, or the total for both.
Finally, I have what I consider a bit of a non sequitur, but the Minister said it several times and repeated it today. He said that return agreements are not a prerequisite for returns. I did not quite understand that because if you want to return somebody, you need an agreement that they will be taken. That seems to be an agreement. It was a bit of a non sequitur and certainly did not fall within the wonderful statements we had from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, about these matters earlier. If the Minister could address those three questions, I will then be in a position to deal with the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I hope I made clear, once the Bill is passed, the direction will need to be updated, rather than “uprated”. It will reflect the new provisions and any new detention facilities that are available to be utilised at that point. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give the noble Lord an indication of the size at this stage.
On returns agreements, as I think I made clear in a previous group on the second day in Committee, there are different relations with various countries, so circumstances can arise where people can be returned to countries with which we do not have a formal returns agreement. I can write to the noble Lord in more detail on that subject.
Lord German (LD)
I thank the Minister for his answer. It would be helpful to know whether the matter of capacity of the two places is just unknown or whether it has not been concluded yet. If that is the case, I presume that the Minister could tell me at some stage what the capacity is.
This has been an important debate and I am sure we will return to it on Report. On the basis of those answers, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord German
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment probes the threshold for detention.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we now move to the second area of Clause 10, which is about the powers of detention. The clause significantly expands the current powers and use of immigration detention. It removes the current protections for vulnerable groups and the current limits on the detention of children, which offer UASCs 24 hours, children and families 72 hours, and pregnant women 72 hours. It gives extensive detention powers to the Home Secretary, away from the scrutiny of the courts, removing effective remedies to challenge unlawful or unjustified detention. That upsets the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. I am sorry that one of the lawyers has disappeared, because I would have liked to have raised the matter of the separation of powers whereby, in the past, the courts have determined the appropriateness of how long people will be detained.
The Bill says that it is for the Secretary of State, not the courts, to decide the reasonableness of the period of detention. It therefore weakens judicial scrutiny and removes a safeguard which is especially important for individuals who are particularly vulnerable to harm from prolonged detention. The Hardial Singh principles, which were established through UK case law, place limitations on the Home Office’s detention powers, so that it is for the courts to determine the reasonableness of a given period of detention. Those are the current principles under which the courts operate.
The role of the courts, including the High Court in particular, in reviewing the lawfulness of detention is critical to maintaining the rule of law fully in accordance with the role of the judiciary under the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. In respect of detention, the Bill infringes that principle. I expect that the Minister will talk about habeas corpus, but that is not about the reasonableness of detention; it is about whether it is legal to detain. Clearly, that is a distinction which makes the case I am trying to make more appropriate and important.
Amendments 58C, 58D, 63A and 63B probe the threshold for detention; my noble friend Baroness Hamwee will talk about that in a moment. Leaving out “suspects” and inserting “reasonable grounds” to believe the person meets the four criteria of Clause 2 for removal. The lower threshold of “suspects” requires no evidence; I can suspect that something is happening without evidence, except when I see what I think I am seeing in front of me. However, having a cause for “reasonable grounds” means that there has to be some evidence. It is unclear whether legal advice will be available in presenting their case for the inadmissibility of due process, especially when there will have been no judicial oversight for 28 days, under the Bill.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I would like to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord German, as another lawyer, to address the Hardial Singh principles and habeas corpus, but since, on my reading of the Bill, they arise under Clauses 11 and 12 respectively, I think it might be best to reserve that treat for another day. I do have a question about Clause 10, which I candidly admit I do not find the easiest to understand. The Bar Council, in its briefing prepared by immigration practitioners far more expert than me, states that the powers already exist to detain any individual who is suspected to be subject to the Clause 2 removal duty, that Clause 10 does not provide for any additional persons to be detained, and that the purpose of the clause is simply to remove existing protections for unaccompanied minors, families and pregnant women. Is there any more to it than that?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 standing in my name. I am immensely grateful to my noble friends Lady Helic and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for adding their names to these amendments. I am also extremely grateful to the many children’s organisations that sent invaluable briefings and gave clarity on the subject. I refer noble Lords to the relevant interests in my name in the register.
The words “detention” and “children” have no place in the same sentence. In the case of this Bill, it can also mean the possibility of indefinite detention, as proposed by the Government. In 2010, the organisation Medical Justice coined the term “state-sponsored cruelty” in relation to children in immigration detention. Its reports highlighted the great calamity being inflicted on thousands of innocent children, with lasting and detrimental consequences, including leaving them traumatised and suicidal. This led to a deep conviction across the political spectrum that such practices were inherently wrong and that a better, more humanitarian approach had to be taken. A pledge was given in 2010 by someone seeking the office of Prime Minister—David Cameron. He pledged that, if elected as Prime Minister, child detention would end. He was true to his word, and it became part of the coalition’s programme for Government in 2010, with policy changed as soon as 2011. With the Immigration Act 2014, the routine detention of children came to an end. That was progress. It was, as one would expect, a humanitarian response to an unacceptable and cruel practice. It is therefore with some dismay and disbelief that we are seeing attempts to reverse the progress made. Almost a decade on, we are discussing the reintroduction of those measures in an even more draconian form.
This Bill creates powers to detain en masse those who arrive in the UK without permission, on or after 7 March 2023, because they are not coming directly from a country where their life and liberty are threatened. Fleeing war-torn Syria but crossing through, for example, Belgium disqualifies them. As mentioned many times, there are no legal routes to the UK for most of those seeking asylum here. Of those coming, thousands of children could face detention. This is not a random statement but one based on the Refugee Council’s careful analysis in its impact assessment of the Bill. The exact figures are available in its report, but over a three-year period it equates to around 13,000 to 15,000 children in detention per annum. We are talking about babies, toddlers, children who are victims of child trafficking, unaccompanied children and children with families—defenceless little people, many of whom have not yet learned to speak and others who may be of speaking age but have no English language. They are detained, and with no legally defined time limit to their detention. They are detained anywhere,
“in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
and without the possibility of bail for 28 days. Needless to say, children’s and refugee organisations are aghast at what is being proposed. They are not alone. Many of us across all Benches in this House and the other place feel the same.
Let us stop and think for a moment that perhaps it is not the intention of the Home Secretary to lock up thousands of children. Perhaps we can put this down to the lack of an economic impact assessment or child’s rights impact assessment conducted by the Home Office itself. If that is the case, now is the opportunity, in Committee in this House, for my noble friend the Minister to reconsider what is being proposed. Of course it is understood that there will inevitably be very specific and limited occasions when children are detained, but the existing legislation already gives parameters for this. That is why I propose amendments to Clause 10, to retain the existing time limits of 24 hours in detention and with safeguards for unaccompanied children. Amendments on those who are with families seek to retain existing time limits so that they can be detained only for up to 72 hours, or not more than seven days where detention is personally authorised by a Minister. Importantly, this should be in short-term holding facilities or pre-departure accommodation.
Existing legislation on the detention of children, as under the Immigration Act 2014, is already in place. I ask only that the status quo be maintained. The Home Secretary may argue that by not detaining children we are creating another pull factor, but the evidence shows that there was no significant increase in the number of children seeking asylum once routine detention ended in 2011.
The question then is what the intention of the Government is if, as Prime Minister Sunak says:
“The intention of this part of the policy objective is not to detain children”.
We were given reassurances by the Minister during the Commons Report stage on 26 April that,
“we do not want to detain children. We will do so only in the most exceptional circumstances”.
There was also assurance from the Minister that the time limits
“will be as short as practically possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 837.]
However, these tests of “most exceptional circumstances” and
“as short as practically possible”
cannot be found in the Bill. All that can be found following the Government’s amendment is a delegated power for the Home Secretary to make regulations under the negative procedure that specify circumstances for the detention of unaccompanied children. There is also a discretionary power for the Home Secretary to make regulations that specify time limits. There is no clarification in the Bill as to the length of the time limits for detention or to which unaccompanied children they might apply, or how discretion might be exercised. Moreover, the regulations may or may not specify time limits for unaccompanied children. We have no assurance in the Bill that they will. Either way, they will do nothing for children and families.
I understood from my noble friend the Minister that later in the Bill’s passage the Government propose to
“set out the new timescale under which children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1783.]
I must ask for clarification from my noble friend. If the Government truly wish to detain children for as short as practically possible, why are they disapplying the 2014 safeguards to children affected by this Bill? These safeguards were put in place by a Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Home Secretary.
Given this late stage in the Bill’s passage, when do the Government propose to set out these new timescales in the Bill, and what will they be? What are the circumstances in which unaccompanied children would be detained and why can these “most exceptional circumstances” not be stated on the face of the Bill and be open to full scrutiny during its passage? Will those timescales in regulations be an absolute time limit for the detention of children, or merely a timescale for judicial oversight of that detention? As a country in which the rule of law is a pillar of our constitution, can we detain children without judicial oversight? I presume detention is for the purposes of removal but would like clarification on whether the Government are proposing child detention for other purposes. If so, can the legal basis for such detention be explained?
Verbal reassurance is completely inadequate. I am no expert but I understand that this is not the way that laws are made. Laws must be much more firmly established. They cannot just fluctuate depending on which Home Secretary is in the driving seat; that is surely a dangerous precedent. Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 seek to place our current safeguards for the detention of children in the Bill, so that children impacted by it need not rely on mere verbal assurance. I understand that the issue of illegal migration is complex and requires a deterrent factor so that those who genuinely qualify can be identified, and that it requires a genuine solution, but I think most here would agree that the solution being proposed is not the right one on so many levels.
We are speaking about defenceless children. I say to noble Lords that it may be difficult for us to think back to our six year-old selves, so let us think about our children or grandchildren, who have neither the physical strength to defend themselves nor the verbal sophistication. We have a moral obligation to ensure that we protect the rights of these most vulnerable human beings.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments generally, in particular those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—it is a pleasure to follow her powerful speech. I have added my name to Amendments 60 and 65.
It was to the Conservative-led coalition Government’s credit that they ended the routine detention of children and replaced it with strict limits. It is thus inexplicable, as the noble Baroness said, that the present Conservative Government should choose to reverse that policy. Prior to that reversal, the Royal College of General Practitioners, together with other royal colleges, published an intercollegiate briefing paper which described the
“significant harms to the physical and mental health of children and young people in the UK who are subjected to administrative immigration detention”.
It concluded that the immigration detention of children and their families is “harmful and unacceptable”. Among the evidence at the time was that provided by Medical Justice clinicians, who
“identified psychological harm to be caused and exacerbated by detention. Symptoms included bed wetting and loss of bowel control, heightened anxiety, food refusal, withdrawal … and persistent crying. Many children exhibited signs of developmental regression … some attempted to end their own lives”.
Today, many organisations—health, children’s and refugee—have briefed us about the likely health implications of such a reversal. To quote the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the effects on children’s
“physical and mental health included weight loss, sleeplessness, nightmares, skin complaints and self-harm, depression and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder”.
It also cites, as did the noble Lord, more recent collaborative evidence from Australia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists warns of the likely damaging impact on child mental and physical health of
“the restriction of movement, lack of community exposure, and limited access to health and educational services”
associated with detention. The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody, a non-departmental public body, has warned the Home Secretary that this is
“a group who are particularly vulnerable, including in respect of mental ill-health, self-harm, and suicide due to trauma caused by dislocation from family”.
It also emphasises
“the link between the indefinite nature of detention and feelings of uncertainty and hopelessness, which can increase the risk of suicidality”.
A group of people with lived experience of the asylum system who advise Doctors of the World have written an open letter to Peers which speaks of their particular concern about the detention of children and pregnant women, whose plight I think we will debate shortly. However, more generally on the basis of their experience they write that
“some of us start shaking when detention centres are mentioned, or crying when watching the news about this Bill”.
The Children’s Commissioner has expressed deep concern at the prospect of children being detained for significant periods of time. She has not been reassured by the government amendment—mentioned by the noble Baroness—which does not specify any time limits or cover children who are with their families. Can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that children are detained for as short a period as possible, as he assured us they would be? Also, what is his estimate of the numbers of children in detention as a result of this change of policy, in the absence of an impact assessment?
The Children’s Commissioner points out that Article 37 of the UNCRC is clear that children must be detained for as short a time as possible. UNICEF makes the point even more strongly, warning that the broad discretion on the detention of children provided by the Bill
“is not compatible with international standards”
and
“would not comply with the principle of the best interests of the child”.
Some, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child, have gone so far as to argue that Article 37 means that children should simply not be detained at all in an immigration context. Whether or not one accepts that interpretation, it is clear that the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 11 once again contravene a key international convention.
Although the Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report published yesterday, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord German, welcomed some improvements in the short-term holding facilities in Kent, it noted:
“Children were detained for far too long at all sites”.
During the previous six months:
“Detention records indicated that 337 children had been held in breach of the statutory 24-hour time limit”,
with one held for just over three days. It notes that some particularly vulnerable children were held for too long, giving the example of a 17 year-old girl with a 10 month-old baby—conceived, she said, following rape—who was held from 11.30 am and then overnight, for nearly 24 hours. If this is already happening, I dread to think what the situation will be like if Clause 10 reaches the statute book.
The incentives—pull factor—argument used by Ministers in their attempt to justify this retrograde policy would be laughable if the implications for children’s well-being and best interests were not so serious.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67. I believe these are measured and proportionate steps to preserve existing safeguards around child detention—safeguards introduced by a Conservative Government.
Child detention must only ever be a last resort. That is a clear requirement, as many have said, of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also requires that detention be for the shortest appropriate time. Article 22 requires states to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive “protection and humanitarian assistance”. I hope and believe that these principles will be recognised and shared across your Lordships’ Committee.
There is strong evidence that the mental and physical health impacts of detention on children are severe. For refugee children, often escaping from traumatic circumstances, detention can further compound their trauma. Detention separates children from their peers, interrupts their education, exposes them to violence and denies them the safe, loving and supportive environment that children need to develop and thrive, and which is their right. Detention undermines parental authority and strains the parent-child relationship. This lasts well beyond the period of detention itself. Even short spells in detention can cause trauma and long-term mental health risks for children. When we detain refugee children, we should know that we are making their future lives and integration into society even harder.
My noble friends in government may have said that they recognise these impacts and do not want to detain children, but I am afraid that, as written, this is precisely what the Bill will do. My noble friend Lady Mobarik has explained the existing limits and how the Bill would change them. To reiterate: the detention powers in the Bill would apply to all migrant children and could see them routinely detained in any location for an indefinite period. This is simply not in line with the principle of child detention as a limited last resort.
We know that the immigration system is overstretched. As such, we can reliably expect every time limit and latitude granted to immigration officials by the Bill to be exploited to the full. Therefore, we must make certain that children’s rights and the limits on their detention are guaranteed in law. It is not good enough for my noble friend the Minister to say that child detention should be exceptional. The law must make it exceptional.
There are some problems which new laws can solve. There are other times when new laws will have no effect—or such serious side-effects that they are entirely disproportionate to the problem. If the Government do not feel that they can regulate immigration and asylum without locking up children for extended periods, that is indicative of a broken system. It is not a problem that is resolved by detaining children.
There is no evidence that the introduction of the existing limits on child detention have led to an increase in illegal immigration. There is no reason to think that removing these limits will improve the Government’s ability to control immigration and prevent the dangerous channel crossings. Exposing children to greater risk of harm, with no guarantee of preventing harm, is not a step we should accept.
The existing limits on child detention, brought in after careful consideration by the Conservative Government, meet the practical need that sadly exists. They ensure that detention is strictly controlled and time-limited, as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires. They mitigate the harm that detention causes. They make detention the last resort. That is what we must retain, and I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I remember well when the detention of children was ended by legislation. I visited Cedars, the property—I do not like the term “facility” in this connection—near Gatwick that was used for two or three days before the removal of families who were going to be removed and were at the end of the argument, if you like. What was particularly notable to me were the facilities for the children, and the support that was given to them, who were accommodated there for a very short time, to help them prepare to go back to a country that they may or may not have remembered—indeed, that they may not have ever lived in. It suffused the whole place and was really admirable. You only had to walk into the place to see the equipment and toys, and the information that was set out, as well as the work being done by social workers to support the children concerned. There were no families there at that point; the property used to allow visitors only on days when it knew that no families would be in residence.
I have a number of amendments in this group. The first is Amendment 59A, which seeks to probe the “discretion” given to the Secretary of State in making regulations regarding the detention of unaccompanied children. Amendment 64A is a similar amendment. The reason for my tabling this amendment is to understand whether the envisaged discretion can be exercised to extend the circumstances specified in an earlier part of the clause or to narrow those circumstances.
I discovered a possible answer to this when looking at my next amendment, Amendment 61B, which would provide for the affirmative procedure. Amendment 64C is a similar amendment. I tabled this amendment out of pure instinct that there should be an affirmative procedure, not a negative one. I subsequently discovered that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, with considerably more logic than I bring to the matter, recommended the affirmative procedure. I quote its report:
“The Memorandum explains that the negative procedure is considered appropriate because ‘the effect of any regulations is to limit the circumstances in which an unaccompanied child may be detained or the duration of detention for the purposes of removal’. In our view, this explanation is misconceived”.
That is very much committee speak for, “We really disagree”. The report went on:
“The regulation making power can only be viewed as a limiting power from the perspective of the Bill as introduced into the House of Commons which conferred an unfettered power to detain unaccompanied children”.
However, amendments were then made in the Commons, so
“no such unfettered power of detention exists in the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords. It is the regulations alone which will specify the circumstances in which unaccompanied children will be capable of being detained, in the absence of which there is no power to detain such children. Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, we consider that the affirmative resolution procedure should apply”.
As I say, the committee approached this with considerably more logic and power than I was planning to bring to it.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 which, as has been demonstrated, have strong support from all quarters of this Chamber. It was the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to these amendments but he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight.
I believe that the strength of opposition to any change in the current detention limits for both accompanied and unaccompanied children is because it is one of the most alarming and unedifying provisions in the Bill. Ministers have set out what they see as the need to detain children for immigration purposes in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently create incentives for people smugglers to target vulnerable individuals. Were this the case, then there would be a case for considering some sort of remedy. However, yet again we have been provided with no evidence that this is the case.
Building an asylum system with deterrence diffused throughout, as described by His Majesty’s Government, has led to this inappropriate proposal to restart detaining children, potentially for an unlimited period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, it was a Government led by the party currently in office who took the brave decision to end the routine detention of children. That was against significant departmental pressure to retain the practice. How have we arrived, just 10 years later, at the conclusion that the well-being and welfare of children can now be sacrificed in consequence of the need to control migration?
In a rare admission to an evidential base for policy, on Monday the Minister referred to most persons deemed children in these categories being around the ages of 16 and 17. I accept his assertion on this point. However, as was said then, some children as young as 10 are involved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, elegantly set out the impacts of detention of children. Studies show that the inescapable institutional nature of detention is traumatic for children and detrimental to the child’s physical and mental development. The Government are fully aware of the damaging impact of detention on children. I quote from one small section of the Home Office’s Assessing Age guidance, published only this March:
“Failure to adhere to the legal powers and policy on detaining children can have very significant consequences, for example … detention can be extremely frightening for a child, with their perception of what they might experience potentially informed by previous negative experiences of detention”.
It needs to be said explicitly that the Government will be sanctioning an intolerable level of emotional distress for the most vulnerable children. Understandably, a child will ask themselves, “What must be wrong with me to have been subjected to such conditions?”.
The Prime Minister stated that the Government’s objective behind the Bill is not the detention of children. None the less, that is what the Bill does. Given the Prime Minister’s just objective, why has the 2014 requirement that child detention be for the shortest time possible been expressly removed? In the year to March 2023, more than 8,000 children entered the UK who would meet Clause 2 conditions and who therefore could be detained indefinitely. In the first three years of the Bill’s operation, this may mean that up to 25,000 children will be deprived of their liberty. Should the deterrent effect of the Bill—about which we currently have no modelling whatever—fail, surely the 2014 requirement must be retained.
The Home Secretary bears a legal duty to safeguard children. Home Office guidance makes clear that this duty requires a demonstration of fair treatment that meets the same standard that a British child would receive. Would we tolerate the Bill’s proposals for our own children or grandchildren?
I welcome the amendments made in this area in the other place, but they do not go far enough. Legislating for the option to place limits on detention and for these limits not to be specified in the Bill is simply not adequate. It is an area that cannot remain entirely at the discretion of a Secretary of State, and children must have a means of challenging the lawfulness of a decision. Also, there have been no equivalent provisions for children within families. Why is one child different from another? Children will be detained after they have fled unimaginable horrors at home or been trafficked against their will. Children will be born in detention and others will have their futures shaped by it. It is the hope on these Benches that we are better than this and know what is right, having banished this immoral practice before. It will take real courageous leadership to change course, but we must. There is concern among my brother and sister bishops about the state of the nation’s soul if we tread so easily down this path.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, that was a powerful intervention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whom it is a privilege to follow. I pick up a point he made a few moments ago about the amendments that were passed on Report in another place. Like him, I welcome those amendments but do not believe they go far enough. Nevertheless, the House of Commons recognised in those amendments that the power to detain unaccompanied children under the Bill should be exercised only in the circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those regulations may include a time limit on such detentions, but the Bill neither requires nor establishes what other restrictions on detention will be put in place.
This is why the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the use of the affirmative resolution is so important. As things stand, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was right to say that, given the importance and the sensitivity of the subject matter, if regulations are made concerning the detention of children, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will deal specifically with that point and perhaps discuss with us how Clause 10 might be amended to take into account what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested.
I turn now to the substantive points made in the wonderful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, from the Conservative Benches. I hope that the Government will take into account the arguments that they have placed before your Lordships tonight. There is an echo of what they said in the evidence from the UK Committee for UNICEF, to which I referred in an earlier intervention, which said this about Clause 10, permitting the detention of children both unaccompanied and in families:
“This is not compatible with international standards and also risks undermining the great progress that the UK has achieved in working to end immigration detention of children since 2010”.
That point was made eloquently by both noble Baronesses, who do not want to see the clock turned back.
Whatever limits on the detention of children are made in regulations issued by the Secretary of State, they are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(b) of the convention establishes the general principle that a child may be
“deprived of … liberty … only as a … last resort and for the shortest … period of time”.
The UK Committee for UNICEF says:
“Two relevant UN Committees have stated that the possibility of detaining children as a measure of last resort … is not applicable in immigration proceedings as it would conflict with the principle of the best interests of the child and the right to development … The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has stated that ‘within the context of administrative immigration enforcement … the deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interests of the child, exceeds the requirement of necessity, becomes grossly disproportionate and may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children’”.
The power to detain unaccompanied children pending removal or a decision on whether to grant them leave to remain would no longer be subject to the 24-hour time limit and other protections currently provided in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted that this time limit was established by law
“because widespread evidence showed the long-lasting damage that detention has on children’s lives”.
The Government have stated that the detention of unaccompanied children will be
“for the shortest possible time in appropriate detention facilities with relevant support provisions in place”.
In an echo of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said earlier, I simply press the Minister to say what that word “appropriate” actually means. Please spell it out, because it has no definition as things stand and we are being asked to agree to something pretty awesome in this Bill tonight. That is why the speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, are so important and the Government should take proper note of them.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, at this hour, I do not propose to repeat anything that has been said, so splendidly and excellently, in relation to children, save to say that it is good news that, as the Minister told us, there are no unaccompanied children currently being detained. But that does not mean that they will not turn up next week, and there will certainly be unaccompanied children in the future.
I will say something very briefly about Amendments 76B and 78A on modern slavery from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I refer to my involvement in various aspects of modern slavery, which I set out earlier. I am very concerned, because it is intended that victims of modern slavery who have got through the first part of “reasonable grounds” ought, under the NRM, to be given the appropriate support. The support provided when they get to that stage of the NRM is generally very good, but none of it, as far as I can see, would be available to those detained by the Home Office under the Bill. That would be a huge deprivation to people who, by definition as having been trafficked, and likely to have been trafficked as well as enslaved, will have already suffered very greatly. This is really an extraordinary and another very cruel move of this Government.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 59 and its accompanying amendments. We have heard from many tonight about the impact that detention has on children; I do not need to repeat that. We heard on Monday from my noble friend the Minister, making the case against creating loopholes in this legislation. I understand his reasons for that, but, like the group that follows, this amendment is about detention and not the other powers in the Bill. We also heard on Monday from the Minister that we cannot evidence what is yet to happen. Of course we cannot, but we can look at what has happened before in this area. When routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum.
We all remember the situation before the current protection was in place, in Yarl’s Wood and elsewhere. I remember the campaign back in 2010, which garnered support from hundreds of parliamentarians and parliamentary candidates across the political and professional spectrum. I remember the pledges of all political parties to end child detention if elected, and I remember the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, delivering on that commitment. There remains widespread cross-party support for not returning to child detention and for maintaining the status quo of the current protections.
At Second Reading, four weeks ago today, my noble friend the Minister said that later in the passage of the Bill the Government would set out the new timescale under which children may be detained. That is very much welcome. It is clear from tonight’s debate that that detail is needed. I hope that this report will be simpler and quicker to produce than the oft-raised impact assessment. Is there any update on when this timescale will come, and can my noble friend confirm that we will see it before Report?
The troubling situation that we are seeing in our immigration and asylum system—the small boats, the backlog in processing, and the lack of broader safe and legal routes—was not caused by the lack of detention of children, and nor will it be solved by reversing our long-standing policy against child detention. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider accepting these amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 60 and 65 in my name. I thank my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for adding their names to these amendments.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I will not add to the very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and give all the reasons why increasing child detention time limits is a bad thing to do. However, I want to go back to what so many noble Lords have asked during this Committee stage: where is the evidence that this is required? The Government have not given any evidence or any reason why 24 hours-plus is required. Since the time limits for unaccompanied children were introduced back in 2014, there has been no empirical evidence and no indication of problems that have arisen which have caused either a pull factor or a push factor for child migration to this country. What is the problem? For a change of policy of this significance, which affects some of the most vulnerable children in the world, the scale of the problem and what problem this will solve have to be put before this House.
We could make the comment that so many noble Lords have, and which I am sure the Minister might: in due course, it will be in the impact assessment. However, the real issue is this. When the Minister stands up at the Dispatch Box, the reason and evidence for this, and the problem it is going to solve, need to be placed before your Lordships, otherwise we cannot in any conscience extend the detention limits.
It was a great part of our history when the Deputy Prime Minister in the coalition Government, Nick Clegg, insisted that children, for immigration purposes, should not be detained, and the Conservative partners in that coalition Government agreed. Noble Lords can see that nothing has changed, so the Minister has to explain what the problem is, what has changed and what problem this will solve.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and to speak specifically to the amendments in this group to which I have attached my name and to the general tenor of this. I did consider not rising to speak at all, because the incredibly powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and her proposition that the words “detention” and “children” do not belong in the same sentence, can be said to sum up all of this debate.
However, I did want to give voice to someone else in this debate—the voice of a nine year-old who was held in immigration detention previously in the UK before the laws were changed. When asked how detention made her feel, this nine year-old said very simply, “Sad and angry. Feel like screaming or breaking something”. That is a nine year-old, talking about the kind of experience that we could again be subjecting children to in this country if the Bill goes through.
To put that in terms of a 2009 briefing paper from the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the Faculty of Public Health:
“Reported child mental health difficulties include emotion and psychological regression, post-traumatic stress disorder … clinical depression and suicidal behaviour.”
A more recent paper, published in 2023 by Tosif et al, entitled Health of Children Who Experienced Australian Immigration Detention, said it showed devastating impacts on children’s physical and mental health and well-being and on their parents’ parenting capabilities. I wanted to allow that voice to be heard and to share that medical reference.
I just want to make one final reflection. There is a hashtag I use on Twitter quite often, #CampaigningWorks. Sometimes people say, “Well, it should have worked indefinitely. Why do we have to fight this same battle again?” I think that what the Government have got this evening is a very clear message that this battle has been fought before. We have learned a huge amount and got all the evidence from last time, and it is going to be fought again, even harder, from all sides of your Lordships’ House, to stop this element of child detention and to stop this Bill going through.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow a number of the contributions to this debate. I shall concentrate on Amendments 59, 63, 64, and 67 by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. These, along with some others, are the most important amendments in this group, and we support what she has said.
I am a proud Labour politician, but I am not someone who thinks a Conservative Government have never done anything that deserves recognition or praise. The Modern Slavery Act is one such thing; the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I do a lot of work with respect to modern slavery, and we know that to be the case. Another, under the prime ministership of David Cameron, was the ending of child detention for immigration purposes. That Government —to be fair, they were a coalition Government—deserved an awful lot of credit for that, since it was an affront to our country that it was happening in the first place.
So it is a great surprise to us to see this Government, in their desperation to do something about the small boats crossing—which we all want to see something done about—driving a coach and horses through that. I would have thought they would have said, “This is something we are proud of. This is what we stood up for. Whatever measures we take to try to deal with small boats, we will not abandon that principle”. I know the Minister will say that the Government made a concession in the other place and came forward with a regulation-making power that will allow exceptions to be made and so forth, but that is not good enough.
The noble Baroness’s amendments are supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, my noble friend Lady Lister and many others, and I hope the Government listen. Whatever else we would wish to see done in order to tackle the problem that we face with respect to small boats crossing the channel—and there is a problem—I do not think any of us want to see children used as one of the ways of doing that. To be fair, I do not believe the Government would wish that either, but the fact is that the legislation as it stands means that unaccompanied children will be detained, and most of us find that unacceptable. That needs to change. We need to go back to the situation that existed before, as suggested by the amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Many of us received the briefing from the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which says:
“If the Government’s intention is to detain and remove those arriving on small boats, then more than 13,000 children may face detention annually under this government proposal”.
Is it wrong? If so, it is incumbent on the Minister, if not now, to look at the way in which the organisation has arrived at that figure and tell us why it is wrong. Thirteen thousand children annually facing detention under the Government’s proposals is a significant number of children.
If that figure is wrong—this goes back to the problem of the impact assessment—then what figure are the Government using? The Minister says, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referenced this, that there are no unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in detention at present. What assumptions are the Government working on here? They must have some figures somewhere for their expectation of the number of children who will be impacted by the proposed legislation as it stands. It would be helpful for us all to know what the Government’s assumption is of the number of unaccompanied children who may be detained as a result of these measures. Presumably they have scoped out the regulations that may be necessary which the Secretary of State may pass in future, so what is the number that the Home Office is working towards?
Secondly, what is the number of children who would be detained under the measures as currently drafted in this Bill who are with a family? I think it would be extremely helpful to all of us to have some sort of understanding of the number of children the Government are expecting their proposals to impact.
We have heard movingly from the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark about all the moral reasons for which we should not proceed with the Bill as it is currently laid out in respect of children. I think that the country would be in a situation where it would say to our Government that, whatever they do to control small boats, not to do it at the expense of children.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 10 is an integral part of ensuring the success of this Bill, both as a deterrent and as a means of ensuring that the Home Secretary can comply with the duty to make arrangements for removal. The statutory powers to detain are spread across several different pieces of immigration legislation, such as the Immigration Act 1971 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The provisions in this clause create new powers that will enable the detention of illegal migrants to establish whether the new duty to remove applies and to promptly remove those eligible from the UK. Many of the amendments in this group seek to limit these detention powers in one way or another, impacting our ability swiftly to remove those to whom the duty applies.
Amendments 58C, 58D, 63A and 63B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, probe the threshold for detention and in effect seek to raise it by replacing the current test based on an immigration officer or Secretary of State suspecting the relevant matter with a test that requires an immigration officer to have “reasonable grounds for suspecting.” To deliver the objectives of this Bill, our detention powers need to enable detention of illegal migrants to ascertain whether someone falls within the duty to remove, and these amendments seek to reduce our ability so to do.
The issue of time limits is the subject of Amendments 60 and 65, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and Amendments 59 and 63 tabled by my noble friend Lady Mobarik and co-signed by my noble friend Lady Helic. The detention powers in the Bill are fundamental to our approach, and here, as elsewhere, we need a robust and uniform scheme that broadly applies to all and does not allow the system to be gamed, for example by adults pretending to be children, or provide scope for the people smugglers to exploit any exceptions or carve-outs. The Bill will create new detention powers specific to all migrants subject to the duty to remove being introduced in this Bill. These new powers will not be time-limited. However, in line with our other existing immigration detention powers, detention will be limited to a period of time that is reasonably necessary for the statutory purpose to be caried out. The new detention powers will not be subject to the same statutory limitations as existing detention powers to ensure the power can apply more widely.
We recognise the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, and therefore the Bill provides that the statutory detention powers may only be exercised to detain an unaccompanied child in circumstances prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State, such as, but not limited to, for the purpose of family reunion or where removal is to a safe country of origin. We will set out, in due course, having reflected on debates in this House and the other place, a new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight—
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Will those regulations be available, even in draft form, before Report?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will certainly take that request back to the department.
Along with a new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without judicial oversight, the Bill will also allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying time limits to be placed on the detention of unaccompanied children for the purpose of removal, if required. I would remind my noble friends Lady Mobarik, Lady Helic and Lady Sugg that unaccompanied children are not subject to the duty to remove and the power to remove them will be exercised only in the limited circumstances we have already described. For the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained under the provisions of the Bill but will instead be transferred to local authority care—that care which the Committee has broadly agreed is the correct place for these children to be located.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I do not recognise the figure of 13,000 detained unaccompanied children in the NGO report to which he referred. Those statistics did not of course include any allowance for the deterrence effect of the measures in the Bill.
Amendment 73, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord German, seeks to introduce time limits on detention that apply at large, not just to detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. An absolute bar on detention of all children and a 28-day time limit on detention of adults would significantly impair the effectiveness of our enforcement powers. Such a time limit is likely to encourage individuals to frustrate immigration processes to the point where the time limit is exceeded, necessitating their release, which would then significantly inhibit our ability to remove those who have no right to be here and are subject to the duty. I agree that immigration detention cannot, and should not, be indefinite; as we will come on to with later clauses, the legislation places clear limitations on the duration of detention and provides for judicial scrutiny of continued detention. We judge the existing safeguards provided for in respect of existing and new detention powers to be sufficient.
Amendments 61B and 64C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, relate to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. I am grateful for the work of the Delegated Powers Committee in its careful scrutiny of the Bill. We are considering the report, published just before the Whitsun Recess, and will respond ahead of Report stage.
Turning to Amendments 74, 75 and 76, which relate to the detention of vulnerable persons, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the existing adults at risk policy, which I discussed earlier, will be updated to take account of the provisions in the Bill, and will act as a safeguard when detention decisions are made in respect of such persons. This statutory policy requires that evidence of a person’s vulnerability be balanced against immigration factors when considering whether detention is appropriate in their particular case. Finally, I remind the noble Baroness that under the terms of Section 59 of the Immigration Act 2016, revisions to the statutory guidance must be laid in draft before each House and then brought into force by regulations subject to the negative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the necessary changes.
There are no exemptions from immigration detention for any particular groups of people. Amendment 76B, again tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to create an exemption to immigration detention for potential victims of modern slavery. When decisions are currently made regarding detention or continued detention, potential victims of modern slavery are considered under the existing adults at risk in immigration detention policy.
To sum up, the Government recognise that unaccompanied children are particularly vulnerable. That is why we amended the Bill in the other place to place limitations on their detention under the powers conferred by the Bill. For all others caught by the duty to remove in Clause 2, we believe it is appropriate for the Bill to provide for a single legislative framework for their detention, with tailored provision being made in our adults at risk statutory guidance. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord, Lord German, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, can I clarify that the 13,000 figure was not just in respect of unaccompanied children? It included families with children.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate in which it appears there has been one speaker against and everybody else in favour of changing the Government’s proposal.
To sum up the discussion, with the exception of the Minister, the key issues have been the impact of detention on children, that this is a backward step, that it is not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that no evidence is given of a sufficiently robust nature to state the objectives of these clauses. To sum it up in a single phrase, “We are going to lock children up to deter the boats”. The rationale of locking up children has just been put to one side. It is a backward step. Therefore, I am sure we will return to these matters at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 (which limits the detention of pregnant women normally to 72 hours under existing powers of immigration detention) will apply to the new powers of detention created by Clause 10 of the Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak briefly to Amendment 70, which is also in my name. Before I start, I wish to put on the record my protest at the fact that we are debating these important issues after midnight. It is disgraceful.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here, but who asked me to underline her strong support. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for her support for both amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for each signing one of them. I am grateful to Women for Refugee Women and Medical Justice for their briefings on the amendments, but I feel we really cannot do them justice at this hour.
Amendment 68 does no more than restore the status quo ante, restricting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation. This restriction was introduced by the Immigration Act 2016 thanks to the strong opposition in your Lordships’ House to the detention of pregnant women.
Prior to that, there was no time limit and, although policy stated that pregnant women should be detained only in exceptional circumstances, in practice they were all too often detained in far from exceptional circumstances, and often for long periods. The Bill would return us to those dark days.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has expertly outlined why these amendments are needed. My good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name in support of Amendments 68 and 70, and regrets she is not able to be here to give her support in person. I share her concern about the impact of detention on pregnant women in particular, impact which we know is considerable. Others will rightly draw attention to the impact on children, and the suggestion of the use of force against either group is unspeakable. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons advises that there
“is no safe way to use force against a pregnant woman, and to initiate it for the purpose of removal is to take an unacceptable risk”.
I turn now to Amendment 68, which is a preservation amendment. This simply asks that the Government maintain the status quo. In 2016, the Immigration Act introduced a 72-hour time limit on pregnant women’s detention, which saw the numbers detained drop from 99 in 2014 to just seven in 2021. It is alarming to think that we may see numbers rise, and the consequences are disturbing. According to research by Women for Refugee Women,
“women seeking asylum who are pregnant are an extremely vulnerable group. Many have experienced trauma such as rape, trafficking and torture, and have significant physical and mental health issues”.
I appeal to the Minister to consider also the well-being of the unborn child involved. The Royal College of Midwives has said:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
Antenatal care and support provided to women who are detained has often fallen short of the care normally available to pregnant women.
Research by Medical Justice found that in Yarl’s Wood, women often missed antenatal appointments. Some had no ultrasound scans while detained, and women did not have direct access to a midwife and could not request visits. In recent years we have seen the devastating consequences of holding pregnant women in prisons. These facilities, including detention centres, are on the whole not set up to provide the necessary health and welfare oversight. This violates women’s dignity and puts lives at risk. The indefinite detention of pregnant migrant women, who are often extremely vulnerable and the victims of abuse and trafficking, is a very worrying and regressive move. The implication that force may be used against them, and against children, is beyond words. I hope wholeheartedly that the Committee supports these amendments and that His Majesty’s Government give them the consideration they so justly merit.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for putting forward Amendments 68 and 70, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 76A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. Let me address Amendments 68 and 76A first.
I made a strong case at Second Reading as to why pregnant women should not be detained. I followed this up with a letter to the Minister. In the letter, which I sent on 19 May, I acknowledged that the Minister has a difficult job in trying to tackle illegal migration but inquired about the following points. I asked about what the Minister had said in his opening comments at Second Reading. He said:
“More than 45,000 people came here by small boat last year. The overwhelming majority of arrivals were adult males under the age of 40.”—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1781.]
This suggests that there were only a small number of women. However, I asked for clarification to understand fully the numbers. If the number was indeed small, then the number of pregnant women would have been negligible. I therefore asked also for evidence of how many pregnant women had entered the UK illegally and whether there had been sharp rise in the figures. I asked this because if not detaining pregnant women was going to act as a magnet, we would have seen the sharp rise suggested by the Government. I chased up a response yesterday and was informed that a draft letter has been prepared and is going through final checks, and I will be receiving it soon. I wonder whether there could be a response today to my points.
It seems obvious that there are probably only a few pregnant migrant women coming to the UK every year, but of course I am happy to be corrected on that point. If the Government are trying to make a case that not detaining them would act as an incentive for more smugglers to bring pregnant women into the country or act as a magnet, that does not stack up. What assessment has been made to arrive at that conclusion?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Good morning, my Lords. I hope all Members of the Committee—it is a large group; larger than usual, for which I give credit to the Committee and to Members opposite in particular—will remember 8 June 2023. I will always remember where I was this morning, and I hope that other noble Lords will too, because this was the morning when we began debating whether detention and force are appropriate for pregnant women and small children.
I am very privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, with her various well-put medical and other reasons why it is not a good idea to use force against pregnant women. It seems that this is now necessary in the context of debating amendments to the Bill. It would seem that there is the edge of depravity, and then there is the abyss. In the last group, we talked about detention. We now take it to its further conclusion, because in the end, a consequence of detention will sometimes be force. It is as well that we confront that, and confront it in the case of both children and, in this example, pregnant women.
Whatever our views about the basic policy here, I rather agree with the noble Baronesses in the previous group and with the speeches we have just heard that it would be appropriate for the Government to think again about this group of vulnerable people in particular, considering all the reasons that were given. Surely, whatever is said about deterrents and so on, there can be some concession to humanity, please, in relation to children and pregnant women. That will not hurt the signalling and the deterrents and so on. We cannot go on like this—and I do not just mean that we cannot go on at 12.20 am. When we were younger, hey, we used to go on all night, so we can go on all night in here; this is how we get our kicks in the Committee. However, we cannot go on degrading ourselves and our values by suggesting that there is no difference between a child or a pregnant woman and an adult, and that everybody is illegal. We need to make some restraints, just for decency, for our own sake.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, it is ironic that we are talking about detention when the Government Front Bench is trying to detain us here. What we are trying to do is our job of sensibly and calmly dealing with a Bill that has huge potential for the liberty and lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is absolutely disgraceful that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was talking about staying here all night, some on the Benches opposite, including the Government Chief Whip, thought it was funny and amusing. It is not funny and amusing to be told that we have to stay here until goodness knows what time to do our job because the Government Benches wish to rush this through at any cost as a red-wall, red-meat Bill, rather than allowing us the serious job that we have to do as Members of this House. It is an absolute disgrace.
Now that I have got that off my chest, I will speak to my Amendment 76A. It is not a probing amendment but a clear amendment that women who are pregnant should not be held in immigration detention. I see no reason for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out what the equality impact assessment says on pregnancy and maternity—it is absolutely enlightening:
“Data on pregnancy and maternity in relation to people who enter the UK illegally is not available”.
It is not available—there is no data. They do not know the numbers and therefore they do not know what the impact is. It continues,
“it is therefore difficult to categorically establish whether there will be indirect discrimination”.
It is not just hard to determine whether there is indirect discrimination; because of the lack of figures it is absolutely impossible to determine what the effect will be of the primary part of this legislation and whether it will act as a deterrent.
I am sure that that is what the Minister is going to tell us: that there is no data or evidence available. As the Minister said on Monday, on all the proposals:
“Obviously, as these provisions are not in force, there is no evidence of the impact of these measures. The noble Lord appears to require me to look into a crystal ball”.—[Official Report, 05/6/23; col. 1175.]
When the Minister gets up at the Dispatch Box, if he trots out the ridiculous statement that locking up pregnant women will somehow act as a major deterrent to people coming here, both the equality impact assessment and what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said on Monday show that that is not the case.
It is for those reasons—the lack of evidence, the lack of understanding of what the impact will be, and, as other noble Lords have said in the debate, the impact it will have on both the pregnant woman and the child—I believe there is no case in a modern, civilised country to have an immigration policy position of putting pregnant women in detention.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in 1979, when I was a young Member of another place, the then Conservative Government regularly kept us there all night. When you are younger, you are quite happy to do that but I suspect it would be better—and knowing how reasonable the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are—if we could schedule our proceedings to include at least one extra day to consider this very important Bill, but also maybe to have a morning sitting if necessary to enable those of us who are not quite as young as we once were to ensure that we can focus properly on these very important questions.
I made common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in 2016 and it was to the credit of your Lordships’ House that, after some ping-pong and debate between both Houses, we were able to ensure that the law was changed to introduce these restrictions on the detention of pregnant women. Similarly, the decisions that were taken about children were to the credit of this House. To see these things being rolled back brings no credit to any of us and I really hope that the Minister, when he goes away from our proceedings tonight and talks again to his officials and to the Secretary of State, will recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed in the debate already, and that the very important points that my noble friend Lady Gohir made in her excellent speech will be taken into account.
The detention of pregnant women is currently restricted, as we have heard, to 72 hours. That limit would be specifically disapplied in respect of those detained because they are or may be subject to the Clause 2 removal duty. As the Bill stands, a pregnant woman could be detained for any period—I repeat: any period—considered “reasonably necessary”. Prior to 2016, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I argued that it was unconscionable that there was no time limit on immigration detention for pregnant women, leading to some of them being detained for weeks, even months, on end. That, inevitably, put pregnant women and their unborn babies at risk.
The Royal College of Midwives says:
“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.
Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was emphatic. He said:
“That detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take to be a statement of the obvious”.
Back in 2016, Medical Justice told Parliament that the level of care for pregnant women
“falls short of NHS equivalence and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standards”.
Are we seriously going to turn the clock back to those bleak times? Some of the women who will be affected will have experienced barbaric treatment, including rape, torture and trafficking. To forcibly return such women will be traumatic beyond belief for them. It will endanger their lives and the lives of the babies in their wombs, and we have no business doing it. That is why I support Amendment 68, and even at this late hour I hope that many of your Lordships on all sides of the Committee will support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because, had I spotted Amendment 76A, I would certainly have attached my name to it. I judge from its numbering that it was a relatively late arrival. Having addressed the detention of pregnant refugees at Second Reading, I saw that Amendments 68 and 70 had full, cross-party and non-party support—including from the Lords spiritual—so I could not attach my name to them. I certainly would have done so otherwise. The case for all these amendments—certainly for not making things any worse than they are now—has already been overwhelmingly made.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, took us gazing into the abyss; I am afraid that I am going to look even further into the abyss. I have specific questions for the Minister. Throughout these many long hours of debate, we have heard again and again that the Government are determined to remove people with great rapidity—that is, that they are going to detain them for just a few days and then remove them. We have all heard the expressions of doubt about that. I want to ask some questions about the Government’s intentions for the removal of pregnant refugees.
I have looked at the NHS guidance on travelling when pregnant; for the assistance of the Minister, the website is fitfortravel.nhs.uk. It says that flying during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy is risky because of the risk of miscarriage. It says that most commercial airlines accept pregnant travellers up to 36 weeks if it is a single pregnancy or up to 32 weeks if it is a multiple pregnancy if the pregnancy is uncomplicated and the pregnant person is in good health. This advice also notes that, in the post-partum period, the risk of deep vein thrombosis is significantly elevated. My question for the Minister, because I think that it needs to be raised in this context, is this: is it the Government’s intention to remove, presumably by flying, pregnant refugees, risking their health and that of their unborn babies?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I have co-signed Amendment 68, which, as we have heard, would keep the existing protection of a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women for immigration purposes. I appreciate that the Minister will make a similar closing speech to the one for the previous group, but I want to make some different, practical points on pregnant women specifically. I believe that there is a case for special treatment here.
In our debates on previous groups, my noble friend the Minister warned against introducing loopholes that could be exploited. I do not believe that that will be the case here. This is a narrow amendment. It does not seek to exempt pregnant women from the other provisions in this Bill, such as the duty to remove. It simply ensures that their and their babies’ health will not be put at risk by being detained with no time limit.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion that maintaining the time limit will result in more pregnant women crossing the channel. Women’s groups and experts working in this area do not believe that it will increase the number of pregnant women making these journeys, so I do not believe that there will be an incentive effect. I am not really clear on the reasoning behind that argument. I do not think anyone is suggesting that this will incentivise women to get pregnant so that they can claim asylum. Nor will women take the decision to put themselves and their unborn baby at risk of a dangerous crossing and eventual deportation just because they will not be detained on arrival for more than 72 hours.
If the broader measures in the Bill work as the Government intend and people are swiftly removed to another country, we will not see people traffickers seeking out pregnant women to make the crossing, exploiting a loophole, because they will not be exempt from removal. The risk of the very small number of people on whom this will have an impact absconding is very low, given the desire and need for healthcare when pregnant. Further, where there is a real risk of absconding, Section 60 allows for detention to be extended with ministerial authorisation.
Despite the same arguments being made when this issue was debated in 2016, the 72-hour time limit placed on pregnant women’s detention has not had an incentivising effect on women claiming asylum. Unfortunately, the Home Office does not collect specific statistics on the number of pregnant women claiming asylum, but the number of women claiming asylum annually prior to the time limit was about 7,000. This figure has stayed broadly the same post time limit; there has not been any increase.
Secondly, there is the argument that there will be sufficient protection for pregnant women thanks to existing or updated guidance. I do not believe that that will be the case either. The existing “adults at risk” level 3 does provide some guidance but, as we saw before the Immigration Act 2016, with just guidance, pregnant women were being detained on a far more routine basis than they should be.
During the passage of the Immigration Act 2016, the original proposition was for pregnant women to be protected through guidance but ultimately it was recognised that that just would not be robust enough, and we saw the introduction of the time limit. I appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said in the previous group about updating the guidance following this Bill, but the gap between policy and practice was really only closed through the introduction of a clear time limit in primary legislation which reduced the elasticity of or room for interpretation of guidance. This protection should remain in primary legislation.
There is widespread support for this amendment from across this House, from the other place and from organisations such as the End Violence Against Women coalition, which is made up of 143 specialist women’s support services and experts, from Refuge, the largest domestic abuse organisation in the UK, from medical professionals, and from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. I will not detain your Lordships by reading out their supporter quotes but, believe me, they are very supportive. I am happy to share them at a more appropriate time.
This is a narrow amendment that would impact just a small number of vulnerable women and keep the protection against detention that pregnant women currently have. It would not create loopholes as it would not exempt women from the duty to remove. The known negative impacts of detention on pregnant women outweigh the un-evidenced—and in my view, incorrect—argument that this will incentivise women to cross in small boats.
This amendment is about protecting women, not putting them at further risk. It would maintain current protections that have been widely acknowledged as working well. If my noble friend the Minister still believes the current time limit should be removed, I would welcome an explanation of the specific reasons for that. I ask him to take into account the widespread support for this narrow amendment and to consider its merits ahead of Report.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been another interesting debate in which there has been one side only, and we face a series of debates where we are looking at fact versus forecasting. All of the speakers who have entered this debate in this short and very narrow area of work have been clear about the issues, which are evidenced—the health and well-being of pregnant women, the effect on unborn children, the dangers of restraint, which have been very well explained.
We are in exactly the same position as we were on the last group. We are asked to make a decision in this Committee based on unevidenced forecasting—in fact, we heard the Minister say earlier that he cannot be expected to look into a crystal ball. That is exactly what the Government are doing here, against all the evidence.
If you think about the number of organisations that have been referred to in this short debate, we are not talking about a small, narrow area of influence; we are talking about huge numbers of organisations representing women throughout this country, human rights and every other sphere you can imagine, believing that this is the wrong way to go. It is the wrong way because we do not have any evidence that it will do the job the Government want it to do.
The Government should stop their crystal ball-gazing to which they directed our attention earlier and concentrate on the evidence they have given. If they cannot provide the evidence themselves, listen to the evidence of the world around us.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, one of the major items in the Bill is the extension of the 72-hour detention of pregnant women. Research carried out in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 found women in detention there often missed antenatal appointments, had no ultrasound and did not have direct access to a midwife.
In a government-commissioned review of immigration detention in 2016, Sir Stephen Shaw stated that
“detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn child and I take this to be a statement of the obvious”.
That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. It was after this that the 72-hour rule was implemented. It was done for a reason, and to undo it would put women and unborn children at risk of serious harm. The actual number of pregnant women in detention is low. There were nine in 2022, so I would argue—and so, I believe, would other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—that we are talking about a low number of children. The Government’s argument that somehow, the amendments would provide an incentive are difficult to understand.
However, to the women themselves, who are pregnant, it makes a huge difference. That is accepted by experts and by every lobby group that has written to noble Lords regarding this narrow amendment.
If I was to give a prize for the best speech of this group I would give it to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. Her speech was very cogent and well argued. On the other hand, the prize for the most impactful speech would go to my noble friend Lady Lister, who gave a powerful and angry speech. She was also very angry that we are having this debate at this time of the morning. I hope that the Minister will hear the unanimity of view that has been expressed by all noble Lords taking part in this short debate.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, this group deals with the detention of pregnant women and the use of reasonable force to effect the detention and removal of children and pregnant women.
Amendments 68 and 76A deal with the detention of pregnant women. Before getting into the specifics, it is worth briefly reiterating some general points made by my noble friend Lord Murray when he responded to the previous group. Our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the United Kingdom. The scheme is designed to be operated quickly and fairly, but holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they are successfully removed under the scheme. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants, save unaccompanied children, back to their home country or to a safe third country will, we calculate, send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, cannot be exploited by the people smugglers facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the United Kingdom. The only way to come to the United Kingdom for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take power out of the hands of the criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people.
I am happy to repeat for the benefit of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and my noble friend Lady Sugg that we must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target pregnant women or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes. I assure the Committee that pregnant women who have arrived illegally will not be removed from the United Kingdom when, based on medical assessments, they are not fit to travel. I offer that assurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the Minister continues, can he tell me where that will appear in writing? An assurance in the Committee at 12.43 am, is one thing, but where will that assurance be written down?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
It will be in Hansard, the official record.
The document from which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted, referring to guidance from the NHS website, provides that, with the proper precautions, most women can travel safely well into their pregnancy. However, in any event, we will remove only persons who are fit to travel.
There has never been a complete bar on the detention and/or the removal of pregnant women, such as Amendment 76A seeks to provide. The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, referred correctly to the situation as presently advised, with a 72-hour period and a seven-day maximum detention thereafter. In answer to the noble Lord, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and other noble Lords, that will continue to apply to women who have not arrived illegally on these shores.
Under the Bill, detention is not automatic. The Bill provides power to detain, and the appropriateness of detention will be considered on a case-by-case basis. We expect that a woman who is in the later stages of her pregnancy and who cannot be removed in the short term would not be detained, but instead released on immigration bail. That matter would of course be assessed by the body hearing the application.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, first of all, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All, apart from the Minister, spoke in support of the amendment. I am very grateful to them for staying until this ungodly hour and not allowing the Government to chase them off, in effect, through tiredness. I know that others have not spoken, but I have felt their support anyway. People are nodding, and I thank them. I know that others who cannot stay this late have had to leave.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby remarked on my anger that we are discussing this at such a ridiculous time. Yes, I am angry about that, but I am also angry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out very clearly, we are having to refight the battles that we fought in 2016 at some length in this House and won. It is so depressing to have to put the same arguments yet again, because the Government and Theresa May accepted them then, and we reached a compromise. That is why, although in my heart I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because that is what I argued for in 2016, with my head I say that we have to just try to get back to where we were. There is no point trying to go further, I am afraid, although I accept what he said in principle.
I should also note that there are a whole lot of other people here who probably would not normally sit in on our Committee proceedings, and I hope they have learned something. I hope they have learned through having to listen to what we are doing to pregnant women—what their Government are doing to pregnant women. I hope they will think about it. Some of their colleagues on the government Benches might have words, perhaps, afterwards, because as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, made a very powerful case.
I thank the Minister for his response, but it was utterly disappointing. He utterly failed to engage with what his noble friend said about the vacuity of the incentives argument, and he had no other argument to put. There is no case, really, because, as she made clear, that argument does not stand up. It was very depressing and disappointing that there was no case.
I am also disappointed that a number of the questions I asked were not answered. I am not going to press them now— it is nearly 1 o’clock in the morning.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness. Any oversight was entirely a failure on my part. I will review the record and revert to the noble Baroness in writing, if that is acceptable.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
It is perfectly acceptable. I was just going to suggest that the Minister do that. I do not blame him at all, because I do not imagine he is that keen on arguing this out at 1 o’clock in the morning either.
We will return to this at Report—we have to. As a number of noble Lords said, this is a narrow amendment that does not drive a coach and horses through the whole Bill, much as I hate the Bill. It would not cost the Government anything to concede to this amendment before Report, rather than forcing us to come back then and go through the whole thing again, voting for the health of pregnant women and their babies. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 12th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
Lord Coaker
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a package which seeks to probe how victims of modern slavery can enter the national referral mechanism and receive appropriate support.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation and the work that I do with the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab, as declared in the register of interests. If it is okay with your Lordships, I will not repeat that declaration during this session.
We are starting with a debate on modern slavery, which of course is of real interest to us all. But first, can the Minister update us on the progress that he is making on the publication of an impact assessment? I said that I would ask him at each sitting, as I think that it is incumbent on him to tell us; he has said “in due course”, and we are wondering whether “in due course” has got any closer—or certainly whether it will be between Committee and Report. It is an issue of immense importance to this Committee. We saw yesterday, with the publication at speed of the JCHR report, what can be done if there is a will. Parts of the impact assessment will be available in the Home Office, because the Home Office will be basing the Bill on evidence and on various assumptions that it is making, and it should share those with the rest of us, for us to consider in our deliberations.
It is even more important that we understand what the Government seek to do since they are already abandoning what they put in their Bill last year. We said that it simply would not work, and the Government refused to accept the amendments that we tabled—but we see in a Written Ministerial Statement, sneaked out by the Government on Thursday evening, that they have now abandoned group 1 and group 2 refugee status in the Nationality and Borders Act. We are all pleased with that, but we told the Government that it would not work, would create a bureaucratic backlog and be unfair. The Government have found that out for themselves, and now they are telling everyone that the two groups are to be joined together. I hope that the Minister learns from that and understands that often, with the various amendments that we table, we disagree not only on the principles contained in the Bill but with the practicalities.
With those opening remarks, I shall speak to Amendment 85 in my name and in the names of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who cannot be with us today, as well as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, along with many other amendments in this group, particularly Amendments 87 and 89. They are part of a package that seek to probe and understand how victims of modern slavery under the Bill can enter the national referral mechanism and receive the appropriate support.
It is of deep regret to me that one of the flagship policies of the last Conservative Government has been smashed. I find it unbelievable that noble Lords would support driving through something that is doing that. It was something that we all regretted—to see the former Prime Minister at Second Reading sitting on the steps in this House and looking with absolute dismay and horror at what this Government are proposing. Of course, the current version of the Conservative Government dismiss that as irrelevant and as something that is not important. However, as somebody who is as tribal as they come with respect to being Labour, I would say that sometimes Governments get it right—and, certainly, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a landmark piece of world-leading legislation, and it is unbelievable that a Conservative Government would seek to unpick that and drive it through.
These amendments look at how victims of modern slavery do—or, more particularly, do not—enter the national referral mechanism, including victims of sexual exploitation. There is a non-conformity to the ECHR and Article 4 of the Council of Europe’s directives against trafficking, as the JCHR report just published makes clear. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will say under his amendment, we have not had an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for well over a year, which is astonishing—because whoever that was, he or she would have been able to inform our debates.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton unfortunately cannot be with us today and has asked me to speak to a number of amendments in his name which I have signed—and one which I have not because there was no room left. I will be very happy to do so. I pay tribute to the enormous work he has put into this Bill on the issues that have arisen, including those mentioned so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
At the beginning of his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned the absence of an impact assessment and our ongoing interest in whether it will arrive in due course and, if so, whether it will be too late to have any impact. If ever there was a series of amendments for which the impact assessment’s absence has importance, it is this. I hope to demonstrate why in a few moments.
I will highlight the potentially devastating impact that the Bill will have on not only survivors of modern slavery but our ability as a country proudly to bring to justice those who are guilty of modern slavery offences. There is a paramount public interest here and internationally in those cases being prosecuted. If you ask a prosecutor how best to prepare a case, the answers are very simple. First, you need co-operative witnesses; for that, you need witnesses to feel safe to provide the evidence. That is when they will come to court, where they will be protected by judges behind screens or by other special arrangements and produce an overwhelming prosecution case. Anything that any Government do to inhibit the prosecution of modern slavery cases is not just regrettable but a manifestly dishonourable disgrace.
The amendments seek to put in the Bill obligations on the Secretary of State to carry out and present before Parliament and an appointed Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner reports and assessments on the potential impacts of this Bill in relation to equality, human rights and compliance. Furthermore, they require detailed information pertaining to each country or territory listed in Schedule 1 to be laid before Parliament in relation to the practical implications, including but not limited to the effect on modern slavery prosecutions.
One is entitled to assume—I ask the Minister to confirm that this assumption is accurate in this case—that, in the preparation of the list in Schedule 1, the Government have carried out due diligence on the 57 countries listed as safe territories to which a person may be removed. Was the placing of a country on the list in Schedule 1 preceded by consultation? Who should that consultation have been with? Let us start with the ambassadors and high commissioners representing the United Kingdom in those countries.
We all know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is well staffed with people here in London who are experts in and who man desks on those countries. Were they consulted before the names of those countries were added to the list in Schedule 1? I ask this question because, having been through the list with a fine-toothed comb looking at every single country on it, I cannot accept that whatever inquiries were made could really be described as diligent. Due diligence in the world in which many of us who work in the professions operate is an absolute given in every instance. I will give your Lordships some examples before I turn to my reductio ad absurdum—if I can be allowed that phrase—of this point.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 85D in this group and have added my name to Amendment 85C from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have also tabled opposition to two clauses standing part, because we on these Benches oppose the whole approach to modern slavery and trafficking in the Bill. We oppose every clause in the Bill and have tabled that opposition because it is not a matter of tweaking, although the amendments draw attention to some particularly egregious provisions.
Clause 25 is about suspension and renewal, but its very existence, sunsetting after two years, indicates, as the JCHR noted, that the Home Office recognises the severity of the provisions. They may be short term, but they will not feel that way to victims and survivors. Can I just say how much I admire the work that the JCHR has done on the Bill? It has produced a splendid report, which I am afraid I flicked through to find the bits relevant to today—but then I am human, and the whole of it will get read.
What evidence is there of abuse of the system? Assertion is not evidence. What evidence is there that victims of modern slavery are likely to be a danger to the public or a threat to public order? Is it really appropriate for a Minister, having sunsetted a provision, to revive it by regulations? A lot of constitutional points arise in the Bill. Mind you, I would rather see it sunsetted before the sun even rises.
When the Bill was starting its passage through Parliament, I was in a taxi and the driver inevitably wanted to tell me what Parliament should be doing. On the subject of small boats, he said he was concerned that his children should be safe from all the terrorists arriving in small boats. He was hearing the message that the Government wanted him to hear. Actually, we had quite a reasonable conversation about asylum seekers and he was very receptive to a number of the things I said, but it brought home to me just how dangerous the Government’s messaging is: it is dangerous to individuals, dangerous for cohesion and integration, dangerous in the attitudes it fosters and much else.
As the JCHR said, how can the modern slavery clauses be applied compatibly with Article 4 of the convention, which places on the state positive obligations that are absolute and cannot be derogated from? A similar point arises with ECAT. The JCHR recommends that Clause 21 be removed, and although I took a little comfort from the fact that our instincts were backed up, that does not achieve it, of course. As the committee said, there should at least be no removal of asylum seekers until a “conclusive grounds” decision has been made. As Amendment 85D indicates, one of our concerns is the recovery period, as it always has been. For many victims, 30 days is nowhere near enough for them to recover. There being no period for recovery at all is far worse.
Amendment 90 refers to co-operation with investigations and proceedings. The point that occurred me a day or two ago follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has been saying. I do not think the point has been made that the absence of the victim may jeopardise proceedings in a number of ways, including because the victim is not available for cross examination, either in person—that is always best—or by video link if that is what the Home Office envisages. I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister: what is envisaged? Are the Government confident that it will always be possible to give evidence by video link, given the countries to which asylum seekers may be removed? Is this to be a provision in removals agreements? It seems to me that not a lot more than lip service is being paid to the importance of tackling smuggling and trafficking gangs, improving the conviction rate and securing remedy for victims. Nothing in the Bill will increase the efficiency of all those things.
Finally, I want to say a word on Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which addresses the absence of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. I hope we will not hear from the government Front Bench that a new commissioner will be appointed “in due course”. The lack of an appointment for over a year now makes the Government’s lack of real concern about modern slavery very evident.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is supported by my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, who regrets that she is unable to be here today. There is much similar ground in this amendment to others, but this amendment focuses specifically on victims of sexual exploitation.
The Bill directs that victims of modern slavery, including victims of sexual exploitation, shall be subject to detention and removal to their own country or to a third country. As we have heard, the principal exception to this is if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the individual is co-operating with criminal proceedings and that their presence in the United Kingdom is necessary for this to continue. We know that the Government have committed to victims of sexual violence and exploitation in this country. The UK ratified the 2011 Istanbul Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence only last summer and there has been much work done over the past few years to increase awareness and tackle perpetrators. To deny those who have arrived here safety and protection is a regressive move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group are very serious contributions to improving the Bill, but I want briefly to add my support for Amendment 85C in particular. I cannot match the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his acquaintance with ChatGPT, but his amendment, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who is not in her place, goes some way towards dealing with the difficulties of the astonishing assumption behind Schedule 1—that asylum seekers can safely be deposited in all these 57 countries. Quite apart from the observation by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, during our previous Committee sitting that they do not have asylum regimes in any case, to make Schedule 1 acceptable the Minister must accept this amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 97 and 98 in respect of Clauses 27 and 28. I commend the report, published yesterday, from Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights—a very fine document which says that this Bill will have “a disproportionate impact” on the victims of modern slavery. My noble friend Lord Coaker referred to the coalition Government of 2010-15, which took the initiative to introduce in Parliament and implement the Modern Slavery Act. This Bill drives a sword through it and completely lacerates it.
There is no doubt that the number of amendments that refer to modern slavery or human trafficking are testament to the Committee’s concern about the Government’s proposal. Again, I refer simply to my own Amendments 97 and 98. The Government frequently refer to victims of the “heinous crime” of modern slavery and, in March 2021, they commended themselves on how many victims had been referred to the national referral mechanism, stating that
“the UK has a strong reputation internationally in addressing modern slavery referrals; year on year there has been a rise in referrals from all frontline responders into the NRM”.
It is extremely concerning that, some two years later, we are talking about the same increase as a matter of abuse and the same victims as threats to public order. That is exactly the language that has been used by this Government. Lest there be any confusion, this language is being applied to individuals who have been the subject of exploitation through being either coerced or deceived. The language is being applied not to those who traffic and exploit people as commodities but to the victims of crime.
The UK has signed up to international obligations to identify and care for victims of modern slavery. One of those is the European convention against human trafficking—frequently referred to as ECAT. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to this. ECAT requires the identification of victims so that they might benefit from the convention entitlements, including the provision of a recovery period when the person cannot be deported and can receive support and assistance. The Bill does not prevent the identification part of our obligations, but it makes identification meaningless for the most part.
Last year, under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the Government determined that some victims should be excluded from a recovery period if they are a threat to public order. There is a case for excluding those convicted of serious criminality; indeed, ECAT recognises that under Article 13. But here is the key point: it has been applied on a person-by-person basis. This Bill, in the words of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, introduces
“a massive extension of that public order disqualification to everybody”.
Yes, all victims of modern slavery within the scope of the Bill are being considered a threat to public order. I hope your Lordships will indulge me as I quote the Government’s justification for this extension. In the human rights memorandum, the Government say that they consider that a person who falls under the duty to remove is
“a threat to public order, arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, including the pressure placed on public services by the large number of illegal entrants and the loss of life caused by illegal and dangerous journeys”.
ECAT makes no differentiation between victims of modern slavery who are in the country illegally or legally. The convention knows that these individuals need safeguarding and protection, regardless of their immigration status.
Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published its report yesterday, states that
“the Government’s position that the modern slavery clauses are ‘capable of being applied compatibly’ is untenable”.
My noble friend Lord Coaker already referred to this point. The report continues:
“The UK has clear positive duties under Article 4 ECHR (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) to protect victims or potential victims of slavery or human trafficking, as well as duties under ECAT—these provisions of the Bill are in direct conflict”
with the above-mentioned article and ECAT. The committee recommends that the clauses in the Bill dealing with modern slavery should be removed, a point I concur with. The Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe has said about the extension of the public order disqualification:
“Such a justification appears to me to be so broad and general that it increases the likelihood of an arbitrary application of the modern slavery protections”.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is due to debate a report on a number of human rights measures currently being debated in the UK, including the Bill. The provisional report was published on 25 May. In reviewing the Bill’s compatibility with ECAT, the report says:
“The fact that an individual was trafficked into the UK does not make that individual thereafter a threat to public order”,
a point that this House and the Government should take on board.
I was disappointed that, on day two in Committee, the Minister said that the Bill was compliant with ECAT because
“ECAT envisages that the recovery period should be withheld from potential victims of trafficking on grounds of public order”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; cols. 1200-01.]
This is exactly the opposite of the position taken by GRETA, the body overseeing ECAT. In its submission to the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights inquiry into the Bill, it said that such an approach
“would be contrary to the purpose of Article 13”,
since Article 13(1) is
“intended to apply in very exceptional circumstances and cannot be used by States Parties to circumvent their obligation to provide access to the recovery and reflection period”.
My Amendments 97 and 98 urged the Government to rethink their interpretation of Article 13(3), which is, in my view and that of GRETA, contrary to the convention. I also urge the Government to be mindful of the recommendations in the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, just published; to heed its advice; and to indicate, in a realistic and humanitarian way, when they will respond to that report. The website states that the Government will respond in August, long after the Bill has been implemented into law. That is too late. We need a response at a very early opportunity—in fact, before we return for Report on the Bill.
I ask the same question as did my noble friend Lord Coaker: when will the impact assessments be made available to this House? Will it be done at a very early opportunity and before the completion of Committee on the Bill?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, many Peers spoke at Second Reading about their concerns over the modern slavery amendments. They did so again on day two in Committee, in response to Amendment 19A and others tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and on day three, after the forensic speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on whether Clause 5 should stand part of the Bill.
The amendments in this group again raise those concerns, and I hope the Minister will recognise the concerns across the Committee. Before I speak to my Amendment 145, I put on the record my support for Amendment 86, of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. As I have already said in Committee, I am deeply concerned about the impact that the Bill will have on victims of modern slavery; this amendment would mitigate some concerns by ensuring that victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK will still be able to access the support that they need to recover. I hope the Minister will update the Committee on the ongoing discussions on this proposal that were promised on Report in the other place.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly, but I hope strongly, to support the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to oppose the question that Clause 21 stand part of this Bill. We have had a very long debate and incredibly powerful speeches, particularly, if I may say so, from the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Carlile, spelling out the immense importance of all the amendments in this group. I do not need to repeat any of those arguments.
I want to mention Frank Field—my noble friend Lord Field. I saw him today; we know he is dying. He was incredibly important in the passage of the modern slavery legislation, along with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and the former Prime Minister Theresa May. He said to me today, “Please explain and set out that if all the amendments in this group are passed, yes, they would indeed provide important protections for the victims of modern slavery and trafficking; but please spell out that this would not be sufficient. There will be the most appalling abuses of these most vulnerable of victims unless Clause 21 does not stand part of this Bill”.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as the deputy chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I will say that the first time I investigated this matter was when I served on a committee with the noble Lord, Lord Field, when he was in the other place, as was I, as well as with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss; so my interest in this goes back 10 years. I apologise to noble Lords for my absence during Second Reading because of ill health. If there was ever an incentive to get back to health, it was so that I could speak on this part of the Bill.
I will speak in particular to Amendment 86 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord McColl of Dulwich, Lady Helic and Lady Stroud, to whom I am grateful. The purpose of this amendment is simple: to allow modem slavery victims exploited in the UK to continue to receive temporary support and protection from removal under current laws, enabling more of them to engage in prosecutions. It does this by exempting victims exploited in the UK from the Clause 21 disapplication of the statutory recovery period and access to temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims.
If we do not amend Clause 21 we will be restricting access to modem slavery support, but it will not stop the boats. It will remove support and protection from many genuine slavery victims who have been exploited on our shores, and will make prosecuting criminal gangs harder, as we have already heard. Human trafficking is distinct from people smuggling and its victims are first and foremost victims of crime.
Few modern slavery victims arrive by small boat. As I think we have already heard, only 6% of small boat migrants were referred to the modern slavery national referral mechanism; that is, 2,691 individuals in 2022 compared to a total of 12,753 NRM referrals for non-UK nationals. A majority of potential victims referred to the NRM are exploited in the UK in full or in part, and most of those are non-UK nationals—58% in 2022. Modern slavery is happening in communities up and down the UK. Thousands of men, women and children are victims of labour exploitation—whether, for example, in agriculture, manufacturing or nail bars—as well as sexual exploitation and criminal activity such as county lines drug dealing.
Many of these people are likely to have arrived in the UK illegally within the terms of this Bill, whether by small boat, by lorry or with leave obtained through deception such as false documents—including deception by their exploiter. Instead of being given temporary protection in the UK, these victims will now be subject to removal and detention under this Bill and will be denied access to the statutory 30-day recovery period of support for modern slavery victims. Victims will simply be driven even further underground by the fear of deportation and trapped in the arms of their abusers. Criminal gangs will be free to continue exploiting these people and the job of the police and prosecutors will be made far more difficult, as victims’ vital evidence will be lost.
Why is this amendment needed? Victims of modern slavery experience inhumane torture and abuse. They are deprived of their liberty and dignity. Those exploited and abused on British soil, whether UK citizens—an increasing number of UK citizens are victims of modern slavery—or foreign nationals, deserve care and a chance to recover. We cannot leave them to suffer exploitation and abuse in the hands of their traffickers just because they were brought into the UK illegally. I ask my noble friend the Minister: has he ever met a victim to hear their harrowing tales? I say to my noble friend that, when I have had the opportunity to meet some of these people—it is not easy, for obvious safeguarding reasons—you realise what a terrible crime it is and what a terrible thing we are potentially doing with this clause.
Victims hold the key against their perpetrators. Failure to support victims not only increases retrafficking rates, but also hinders our ability to dismantle the criminal networks managing the abuse because their vital evidence and intelligence is lost. We cannot allow unscrupulous criminals to get away with impunity, poisoning our own communities.
Prosecution and conviction rates are stubbornly low. In 2022, there were just 194 convictions for Modern Slavery Act offences in England and Wales on an all-offence basis. Yet since 2017 there have been thousands of NRM referrals every year for modern slavery occurring in the UK. In 2021, the National Crime Agency’s threat assessment said:
“It is likely that at least 6,000 – 8,000 offenders are involved in the exploitation of people in the UK”.
Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice and Justice and Care shows that, with appropriate, consistent support, more victims engage with investigations and prosecutions, providing vital information that brings criminals to justice. But support needs to come first to create stability and confidence. We need to ensure that victims of slavery exploited in the UK can continue to receive support and protection from removal during the temporary, statutory recovery period. This will ensure that victims can still have the confidence to come forward.
In response to a similar amendment tabled in the other place by my right honourable friend Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and supported by my right honourable friend Theresa May, the Immigration Minister said:
“we will look at what more we can do to provide additional protections to individuals who have suffered exploitation in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23, col. 781.]
Can my noble friend the Minister give us some more information about the intended additional protections? I could perhaps suggest he just accepts my amendment. Have the Government consulted the Crown Prosecution Service and the police about the likely impact of Clause 21 on investigations and prosecutions and the burden it will place on their staff?
My noble friend the Minister may come up with some points. He will possibly say that people will make false claims of being exploited in the UK to bypass deportation. However, as we have already heard, a victim cannot self-refer with a claim of modern slavery. Referrals can be made only by official first responders who suspect the person is a victim. In 2022, 49% of referrals were made by government agencies, most from UK Visas And Immigration and from Immigration Enforcement. Only 6% of referrals were made by NGOs. The rest were from other statutory services. Training and guidance for the staff making referrals, particularly those in Home Office agencies, should prevent inappropriate referrals being made.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I was present at Second Reading but was prevented from taking part for medical reasons. I am very grateful to your Lordships’ House for originally giving me such support in putting forward the first anti-slavery, anti-trafficking Bill. It was a real tribute to this House to have the tremendous support that was given all around it.
I am pleased to be a cosignatory of my noble friend Lord Randall’s Amendment 86. I firmly believe that, if victims of modern slavery have been exploited in the UK, we have an obligation to assist them in recovering, with accessing the NRM and with all the other modern slavery protections that have been established for that purpose.
I record my support for Amendment 90 from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which would reverse the presumption created in another place that individuals assisting the police do not need to be present in the UK to do so. We must not underestimate how much courage it takes for victims to provide evidence. A victim of forced labour described being in fear of her life if she exposed where her exploitation took place. Victims need support, and we should be a country that is willing to provide it if we are asking them to give evidence—many speakers have stressed this.
My Amendment 146 would prevent Clauses 21 to 28 being commenced until the Government have appointed an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and until there is robust scrutiny of the Bill from an independent person with the expertise required to understand the complexities and nuance associated with modern slavery. I of course also support Amendment 92B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
The ground-breaking role of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commission was established under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and it aims to encourage good practice in the prevention, investigation and prosecution of modern slavery offences, and in support for victims. Yet the role has been vacant for over 12 months. During that time, there have been significant changes to the modern slavery protections in the UK and to the debate about care for victims. The Bill should have been informed by the views of an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner but, so far, it has not. I and other parliamentarians have tabled PQs, asking the Government when they intend to fill this vacancy. If the Government are committed to beating modern slavery, I contend that, as a bare minimum, we should abide by our own modern slavery legislation.
I hope that the Minister will provide an update on the current stage of the recruitment process. The mere appointment of a commissioner is not enough, although it would of course be welcome. Any new commissioner needs to be afforded sufficient time to review and analyse the Bill and, where appropriate, make recommendations. If we are truly striving for best practice in tackling modern slavery, I agree with Dame Sara when she said:
“There is a real need for that fearless, independent, expert voice, and that is missing”.
I urge your Lordships to support Amendments 86 and 146.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it would be entirely appropriate to support virtually all of these amendments, which have my total support. But the message from Frank Field—the noble Lord, Lord Field—was right: however many amendments we pass—and I envisage some long nights on Report—nothing will significantly improve this shoddy, shabby and unworthy piece of legislation. Frankly, I am as ashamed that a Conservative Government are bringing forward this legislation as I am proud that Theresa May brought in the Modern Slavery Act in the year when we commemorated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, symbolised by the Barons of Runnymede who look down on us today.
I am very conscious of the plea made on Thursday last week by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, when she urged the House not to go in for unnecessary repetition and so on. She was quite right to do that, but I do think we should have some proper answers from the Minister today. When is the impact assessment going to be ready? When is the anti-slavery commissioner going to be appointed? What plans are there to talk to that man or woman at the earliest possible date? If, in fact, in due course in response to that very fine report from the Joint Committee, just published, the answer is that that is going to be answered by the Government in August, when Parliament will have dealt with Report stage, that is nothing less than an absolute disgrace.
We want to have some definitive answers by the time this Bill goes to Report. It is a shoddy piece of legislation. It is not worthy of the British Parliament. It is not worthy of a Conservative Government and I will say little more about it other than I feel a shame that is in sharp contrast to the feelings I had in 2015 when Theresa May’s Bill became an Act of Parliament.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I also support the amendments in this group, but at the start I would perhaps add two caveats. I will make reference to, I think, five of the amendments, because I do not simply want to reiterate all the various points that have been made by others. I also share with the noble Lords, Lord Field and Lord Cormack, and others—and I suspect those who tabled the amendments—the belief that the purpose of these amendments is to help ameliorate and mitigate some of the worst excesses of the provisions but that they cannot, in themselves, rectify what is there.
I think that two of the proudest moments in our democracy in the last 15 years have been in this field. Mention has been made on numerous occasions of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which was ground-breaking legislation, and the Committee will be familiar with that. I also refer from my own experience more locally to the Human Trafficking Act that was passed in the Northern Ireland Assembly and brought by my colleague and noble friend Lord Morrow as a Private Member’s Bill. It predated the Modern Slavery Act.
Both those Acts tackled the utter evil of human trafficking. Human trafficking, whether it is childhood exploitation, servitude, sexual exploitation and prostitution, or using people as drug mules or whatever is inherently evil because it dehumanises people. It treats those people as a commodity simply to be used for advantage. Therefore, it is right that we target our efforts against modern slavery.
Some critics of this Government would take a very, I suspect, unkind and cynical approach towards this piece of legislation. They would see the Government’s motivation as some form of cynical electoral virtue signalling, of trying to put through a piece of legislation which may not even really make it into any form of practice and may not survive any form of legal challenge but is instead designed to send out a signal to some within the electorate of their determination at least to be seen to be doing something.
I am sure that that is an entirely unkind interpretation of the motivations of this Government and indeed I challenge the Government as I am sure they would very keen to refute those unkind and cynical expectations. I think the best way they can do that, particularly on the grounds of modern-day slavery, is by enthusiastically embracing the amendments in this group.
I turn to the two main purposes of our focus against modern-day slavery—the two main motivations. First, as a nation—and this is very much at the heart of the Modern Slavery Act—we should show compassion and support for victims. I appreciate that there are some in this Committee who have greater expertise than I have, and some who have directly met victims, but for any of us to place ourselves in the shoes of those who have been exploited and trafficked is very difficult—but we need to support them. Secondly, we need to take every action that we can to bear down on the perpetrators, who would cynically exploit and use them in human trafficking. So we have support for victims and opposition to perpetrators.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The report, as others have mentioned, came out early today, and many noble Lords will not yet have had the opportunity to read it. Evidence was taken from many people who had in-depth experience and who were experts in these different fields.
On modern-day slavery, we heard from the former anti-slavery commissioner, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, who, as noble Lords know, had been a very senior police officer and the lead police officer in the area of Oxfordshire. She made it very clear that she was horrified at the implications of the Bill, saying:
“It basically denies those who are trafficked to this country and arrive irregularly any modern slavery protections … It will be the victims who are punished, not those who are trafficking them”.
She says that as someone with huge experience. While we do not have a modern-day slavery commissioner at the moment, she is our last one, so her voice of experience should be heard and appreciated by this House.
We also heard from the Salvation Army, which the Committee will know is, again, the lead organisation dealing with modern-day slavery. Similarly, in its testimony to us, it said that
“removing people … will deliver vulnerable people back into the hands of the criminal gangs who have exploited them. This does nothing to break the cycle of exploitation”.
We really have to listen to that. I know that there are people who do not believe in expertise, but we have to listen to those with real expertise. I agree that this whole set of recommendations in the Bill is unacceptable, inhumane and unworkable.
The noble Lord, Lord Weir, suggested that we are being cynical if we think that this is performance politics. I am afraid that that is the view held by noble Lords all around this Committee, not just on the Opposition Benches. There are many Members on the Conservative Benches who know that the Bill is really the last shout of a failing Government. One said to me that it was the last card in the pack. Just think about what that means: that, when you are foundering, you turn to immigration and make a dog-whistle piece of legislation in the ugliest of ways.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 86 in particular, but I fully endorse other efforts to preserve protections for victims of modern slavery.
As I said at Second Reading, and as many noble Lords have warned, the provision in the Bill to remove modern slavery protections from migrants targets the very people most at risk of being trafficked. It would reduce the number of people coming forward with evidence and make prosecutions harder. My noble friend the Minister reaffirmed then the Government’s commitment to tackling the horrendous crime of modem slavery and to supporting victims, but I am afraid that the Bill still falls short.
There are strong similarities to cases of sexual and gender-based violence. We know that survivors’ testimony is crucial for accountability, but, without proper support and good systems in place, survivors are not, and do not feel, able to give evidence. The Government say that, where absolutely necessary and where they are co-operating with the police, victims will be able to stay in the United Kingdom while their case proceeds, but I fear that this sets the bar way too high. By the time it becomes apparent that a survivor’s evidence is necessary, it will often be too late. Survivors need the time and space to process what they have been through and to prepare themselves for coming forward with evidence, speaking about what they have experienced and going through the justice system. It can be an intense and daunting process which requires determination from the survivor and engagement and support from prosecutors. That is much harder to deliver remotely and why a recovery period is so crucial. It allows the time to reflect, to receive support and to rebuild trust, which may have been shattered by the experience of being trafficked, but without which they cannot work with the police or prosecutors.
There are parallels with the situation of migrant victims of domestic abuse. We have ample evidence that the fear or threat of deportation is used by abusers to control their victims and that it prevents victims from seeking help or escaping an abusive situation. Similarly, if survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking believe that reporting the crime that they have experienced will mean immediate deportation, trafficked persons are far less likely to come forward in the first place. The net result of that might end up being more people suffering and less control over migration.
The support that survivors of trafficking are able to receive during a recovery period can also reduce their risk of being trafficked in future. Trafficked persons are often highly vulnerable. Returning them to their home country without support may not solve the problem and risks putting them back into the cycle and seeing them trafficked again. A recovery period can be crucial to ending dependency, allowing survivors to rebuild their lives—that, in itself, is a blow to the human traffickers’ model.
I really hope that my noble friends in government will feel able to look again at this. I do not think that removing the protection against modern slavery will have the impact for which they hope; I fear that it will make the situation worse rather than better. If we want to prevent dangerous illegal migration, we need to tackle the traffickers who facilitate it. Targeting their victims will only make that harder. By ensuring the recovery period, Amendment 86 would allow survivors the space and cover to receive the support they need and, in doing so, would make successful prosecutions more likely and escape from modern slavery easier. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to support it.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Randall’s Amendment 86, to which I am delighted to have added my name. I also support other amendments in this group. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests as a member of RAMP. I debated whether to add my comments to this already extended debate, but it is important that the record clearly demonstrate that voices on all sides of the House have raised their concerns about this clause.
This nation has a proud history of ending the evils of the slave trade, and on multiple occasions the Government have recognised the importance of building on this history. My noble friend the Minister used the standard Home Office line to take when he said:
“The UK has led the world in protecting victims of modern slavery and we will continue to identify and support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers”.
I agree that the UK has led the world in bringing forward legislation that protects victims of modern slavery, and some of us were deeply involved in bringing it about, but I simply cannot see how the Bill enables us to continue to identify and support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers.
As it stands, the Bill will prevent the care of victims of slavery and in so doing will damage our reputation. When I was a Conservative special adviser, we talked about the modern slavery legislation as one of our proudest achievements, but clauses in this Bill, coming fresh on the heels of the Nationality and Borders Act, are systematically dismantling that achievement, as we have already heard.
Through the Illegal Migration Bill two things are happening regarding slavery. First, support is removed for those who have been exploited and enslaved if they arrive in the UK via irregular routes. Secondly, the Bill makes it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave-drivers, who are the real villains. Amendment 86 would rectify those two serious moral and practical issues in the Bill.
First, if someone is trafficked to the UK via irregular routes and is enslaved in the UK, the provisions in the Bill will prevent them being referred to the national referral mechanism or having the protection of the Modern Slavery Act. This covers most of the men, women and children who are trafficked into slavery in the UK. Amendment 86 would ensure that those who have been exploited and abused while in the UK, whether they are a UK citizen or not, receive the care and support they need. It would level the playing field by saying that, regardless of your mode of entry, if you are a victim of slavery you cannot simply be detained and removed.
Secondly, the amendment would address the misguided nature of the legislation. As we have heard, victims of slavery hold the key to the prosecution of perpetrators. This is vital to remember. As drafted, the Bill will prevent victims coming forward to give evidence because of the fear of being detained and removed.
Evidence is already starting to emerge from UK police forces that the erosion of victim protection from the Nationality and Borders Act is severely hampering the prosecution of perpetrators. If we leave this Bill as it stands, it will hamper prosecutions even further. Surely, its whole purpose is to stop these illegal acts. Amendment 86 creates space for victims of slavery to come forward.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, allow me to add a few words about law enforcement. It seems to me that the problems the Bill intends to confront would best be solved by international co-operation, including international rules of law, but also by firm domestic law enforcement against the traffickers. That is a critical component.
It is very difficult for me to conceive of successful cases against traffickers without the co-operation of their victims. Persuading victims of crime in some categories of crime, including human trafficking, to give evidence against their tormentors is difficult, complex, sensitive, time-consuming work for the most obvious of reasons—the victims themselves feel under threat. This Bill gives those co-operating witnesses, who are showing enormous courage, no encouragement, no succour, no assistance, no help whatever. It will undoubtedly, in my judgment, make successful cases against traffickers less likely. This Bill is not simply anti-asylum but anti-prosecution.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The strongest argument, apart from the legal and moral arguments, is the practical one that has just been made. How do you persuade victims of slavery to come forward and assist in a case if, when they do so, they are declared inadmissible and dispatched abroad? It is simply counterproductive and destructive of the whole basis of the Modern Slavery Act.
I would like to start as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did, by pointing to the Government’s announcement last week—there seemed to be some other things going on at the end of last week. It would have been better to make the announcement in this House, but it slipped out that the two-tier system for handling asylum introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act was being abandoned. We spent weeks pointing out that it would not work. However, better the sinner that repenteth, and I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to drop it. I think they were absolutely right.
The asylum queue now, at about 178,000, is 20,000 longer than when, with objections, we passed the Nationality and Borders Bill. A principal reason for it getting longer is the two-tier system that was introduced, which is administratively unworkable. I warmly welcome the Government changing their mind, but it is a shame that it remains a stain on our statute book—a clear breach of the UN refugee convention, as the UNHCR confirmed at the time. Of course, it was a smaller breach of the refugee convention than this Bill, as the UNHCR has confirmed.
If I could have the Minister’s attention, I ask him to at some stage correct the record on the UNHCR’s role in these matters. In the first day in Committee, asked about its views on the Bill, he acknowledged:
“Some parts of the UNHCR have views on the Government’s position”
but said that the UN
“is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 968.]
He might want to reconsider that. Under Article 35 of the convention, the duty is laid on the UNHCR of supervising the application of the convention and all parties to it have an obligation to co-operate with the UNHCR. As for “some parts” of the UNHCR commenting on the Government’s position, it has published and formally conveyed to the Government its formal position and legal observations on the Bill in the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 35. That is what it is required to do and what it has done. To suggest that criticisms of the Bill come from “some parts” of the UNHCR but are not its institutional view is wrong.
I come back to the modern slavery amendments. Mine was taken in the middle of the night, unbeknown to me as I rashly went home shortly before midnight. One of the charms of being a Cross-Bencher is that you never have the faintest idea of what is going on. The usual channels rarely have a tributary around these parts. My amendment was crucial, but it would be out of order for me to speak to it now. However, I can praise the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its magisterial report that came out over the weekend. Its conclusion on the clauses we are looking at is exactly the same as that which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, came to:
“It is, in our view, wholly inappropriate to categorise victims as a threat to public order by the mere fact that they arrived … through an irregular route”.
It says—correctly—that Clause 21 breaches Article 10 of the convention against trafficking and formally recommends that it should be removed from the Bill. I agree. It seems to me that that is what we should do, so I shall support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, when we consider whether it should stand part.
My general view is in line with that of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: I do not like this debate, for a number of reasons, partly because the best debates have two sides to them. This is tennis with nobody on the other side of the net and I am fed up with it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I agree with him about that form of tennis and, seriously, about both the timing of the Government’s announcement of their plans for the Nationality and Borders Act and the fact that this is a U-turn that needs to be applauded. If the Government point themselves in the right direction, people should not jump up and down and point a finger and go “U-turn, U turn”. It is better than not U-turning. We have heard many powerful speeches in this debate, but I think the Committee will join me in commending all Members on the Government Benches who have shown both courage and compassion in getting up and opposing the Government’s plans for victims of modern slavery.
I agree with both the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the whole Bill should go, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that all these clauses should go, but I actually signed a number of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—a package which has helped us interrogate what the Government are now doing and the impact that it will have. In that light, I shall ask the Minister three specific questions that in some ways draw on what has been said before, but also go in slightly different directions.
My first question concerns the situation if the provisions under the Bill, as the Government plan, essentially end the protection for victims of modern slavery. Imagine a police officer now, crouching down beside, say, a frightened young man who has been forced to work in an illegal marijuana farm, behind locked doors where the whole thing could have caught fire and killed him at any moment; a young woman forced by threats to stay in a nail bar; a young man who has been trapped for months in horrendous conditions at a hand car wash; or indeed a young woman who has been forced into sexual exploitation. Currently that police officer can crouch down beside them and say, “It’s all right, you’re safe now”. What does the Minister think a police officer would be able to say if the Bill goes through as drafted? What could that police officer say to the victim of modern slavery? I ask the Committee to think how the police officer might feel about being in that situation.
My second question concerns one of the things that that police officer would probably do, perhaps not immediately but soon after that. They would start to say, “Can you tell me what is happening here? Please, tell me what is happening. A bit down the track, would you think about testifying against the person who put you into this situation?” If we think about even the intelligence gathering, let alone the prosecution, what would the passing of this law do?
My third and final question is: have the Government really considered this? Let us think about the kinds of illegal operations I referred to—illegal enterprises that are a stain on our communities, that compete with and thrust out honest, decent businesses, that are a rotten core in the community and have all sorts of nasty effects. What will allowing those operations to continue, which is what the Government’s plans would do, do to our communities?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests with RAMP and Reset and, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, did at the outset of the debate, I hope that will stand for the other times I speak later on different groups.
I support all the amendments, but I am speaking in support of the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clauses 21, 25, 26 and 28 be completely removed. This is supported by my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who we heard earlier is unfortunately unable to be here today. Bishops across England have had the privilege of working very closely with the large sector of faith-based charities and projects that work with victims of slavery. We have heard a lot about the Salvation Army, but I want to highlight the Clewer Initiative, which is our own project raising awareness and helping support victims. The feedback that has been coming from the Salvation Army, from Clewer and from other groups in relation to the modern slavery provisions of the Bill ranges from trepidation to outright horror.
Rather euphemistically, the Explanatory Notes refer to what is proposed in this and the following clauses as “a significant step”. I suggest that the complete disapplication of all support, replaced with detention and removal, is drastic in the extreme. I cannot see how such a step could be justifiable, but for it even to be defensible would require the most robust and extensive level of proof of its necessity. I do not think that has been shown.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 86 and 90. No one wants to see abuse of modern slavery legislation or false claims from those arriving on small boats, but I regret that in the Bill currently, all protection for genuine victims of modern slavery has been removed. These amendments are focused just on those who have been unlawfully exploited here in the UK; they do not allow people arriving to claim it. Any abuse of the national referral mechanism should be addressed but, as we have heard, no data currently exists on this, so I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could share any information on the scale of this issue. These amendments provide the additional protection for victims of modern slavery that the Immigration Minister is looking at, and I hope my noble friend will carefully consider them.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, not one speaker has supported the Government’s position on these clauses. The only person who is going to speak in favour of the Government is the Minister. Surely the Government must realise what the Committee’s view is of these provisions.
In the debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill, we discussed the importance of a period of recovery and reflection for victims of modern slavery. For example, those traumatised often do not have a clear recollection of what has happened to them until after they recover. They cannot co-operate with the police until they have had a period of recovery; it is counterproductive to remove that provision.
In the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed on a previous group, we heard a clinical dismantling of the government case that the protections afforded by the Modern Slavery Act are being abused. It does not stand up to scrutiny. In previous groups, we also discussed how unlikely it was that victims would support a prosecution if they were removed from the UK. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, what will the impact of these measures be on tackling modern slavery?
We all want to see the prosecution of criminals involved in the exploitation of vulnerable people, whether they are children or vulnerable people trafficked into this country, but what assessment have the Government made of the impact on the likelihood of such prosecutions? How can all victims of modern slavery who arrive in the UK through what the Bill calls irregular routes be considered a threat to public order? We know how children can be groomed and coerced into committing offences—as so many children with British citizenship have been in connection with county lines drug dealing, for example—yet the Government want to disqualify from protection non-British children who could be in a similar position.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, Clauses 21 to 28 remove all protections from victims of modern slavery who arrive irregularly, making it more difficult to prosecute the criminals exploiting vulnerable migrants, including children. If the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, with all of his experience as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, is telling us that this will have a devastating impact on the police’s ability to tackle these issues, the Government should surely be paying attention. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, outlining the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, talked about witnesses of modern slavery not feeling safe in giving evidence against offenders.
The other important question raised by these amendments is when a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner will be appointed. Will it be at the same time as the Government respond to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ report on the Bill? They say that will be in August, when the danger of the Bill being criticised by such an independent commissioner will have gone.
What assessment has been made of how safe the countries in Schedule 1 are for victims of modern slavery? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, there is a bigger problem with modern slavery in Rwanda than in this country, yet this Government are proposing to send victims of modern slavery to that country.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee drew attention to the excellent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on the weekend. It entirely supports the position taken by these Benches in opposing all clauses in the Bill, including those in this group. Clauses 21, 25, 26 and 28 undermine the Modern Slavery Act without justification and should not stand part of the Bill for the reasons powerfully explained by noble Lords on all sides of this Committee, including in the very powerful contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Cormack. I pay tribute to the long and continued dedication of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, in this area.
The amendments in this group, while commendable, would not remove the dangers to the victims of modern slavery proposed by this Bill. That is why these clauses should not stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, as I have repeatedly set out, we need bold and radical action to tackle the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings in the channel. We will deter such crossings only if those who would seek to make them know that they will not be able to build a life in the UK. Instead, they would be liable to be detained and swiftly removed. To achieve this, it is necessary not only to make asylum and human rights claims inadmissible but to withhold modern slavery protections from those who meet the conditions in Clause 2.
As was set out earlier in response to amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the national referral mechanism presents clear opportunities for abuse by those who would seek to frustrate removal. We have heard many statistics in this debate, and, of course, when the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others quote from official statistics I do not dispute the figures, but let me add some more which have not been mentioned. It is worth repeating the statistics which demonstrate the sharp rise in NRM claims, where someone is detained pending removal. The NRM referral rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% of detentions in 2019 to 73% in 2021. In contrast, where people were not detained for return, less than 3% of people who arrived in 2021 were referred to the NRM within three months of entering the UK. I suggest that these figures cannot be ignored.
Clause 21 is firmly based on the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, or ECAT. Article 13(3) expressly provides that states are not bound to observe the minimum 30-day reflection and recovery period if
“grounds of public order prevent it”.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, omitted to mention this provision when they stated the other provisions of ECAT.
The measures in the Bill are intended to deal with the immediate and pressing broader public order risk arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, including the pressure on public services and the threat to life arising from the dangerous channel crossings. We recognise the exceptional nature of these provisions. That is why Clause 25 includes a sunsetting provision such that these provisions will cease to operate if not extended two years after commencement.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
The Minister is making a very bold proposition when he says that Article 30 gives the Government an excuse to ignore ECAT. Can he give us examples of public order events which justify that bold, and in my view unjustifiable, statement?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It was Article 13(3). The events which the Government say warrant the grounds of public order which prevent observance of the 30-day reflection and recovery period are the conditions which I identified earlier in relation to the pressure placed on public services and the threat to life arising from the dangerous channel crossings.
I do not propose to address all the amendments individually, suffice to say that where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an individual is participating in an investigation or criminal proceedings relating to their alleged exploitation, and considers it necessary for them to be present in the UK to provide that co-operation, and considers that their co-operation outweighs any significant risk of harm to the public they may pose, that individual will be exempt from the disqualification. This allows the Government to protect against the threat to public order arising from the current circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, while also ensuring that investigations can be progressed to bring perpetrators to justice. By one means or another, the amendments seek to negate, or at least roll back, the intended effect of the provisions in Clause 21 and subsequent clauses.
Lord Cormack (Con)
What does my noble friend say to the statement that what is being done here is in effect dismantling a world-renowned piece of legislation—the Modern Slavery Act—passed only eight years ago?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I do not agree with my noble friend. These provisions are strictly limited to deal with the present emergency that we face.
As with the amendments to the other parts of the Bill, if we add exceptions, exclusions and exemptions, we will significantly undermine the efficacy of the Bill overall and the scheme will be undermined, making it unworkable. The Bill will then not deliver on its stated purpose.
Having said that, I want to touch on some of the specific amendments. However, before I do so, I will respond to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to give an update on the economic impact assessment. At the risk of repeating myself, it remains the Government’s intention to publish the document in due course. However, I undertake to provide an update to the House before the first day of Report.
In relation to Amendment 86, put forward by my noble friend Lord Randall, I point out that for the cohort caught by the Bill—particularly those apprehended in Kent, having crossed the channel in a small boat—few will be victims of exploitation in the UK. It is important to remember that victims of modern slavery who are British citizens, or those who are in the country illegally having overstayed their visa, will not be caught by the public order disqualification. Similarly, unaccompanied children who are not to be removed under the power conferred in Clause 3 will continue to benefit from NRM support—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As for others who are to be removed pursuant to the duty in Clause 2, their relocation to a safe third country will remove them from their exploiters.
I remind the Committee that our partnership agreement with Rwanda includes express provision for the Rwandan Government to take all necessary steps to ensure that any special needs that may arise as a result of a relocated person being a victim of modern slavery are accommodated. This should not be downplayed, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham suggested. I can also assure my noble friend that we will continue to engage with the police and the CPS as we prepare the statutory guidance provided for in Clause 21(6). I reiterate what my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister said at the Commons Report stage:
“we will look at what more we can do to provide additional protections to individuals who have suffered exploitation in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 781.]
That remains the Government’s position.
I turn to Amendment 88. It is the unfortunate reality that criminal gangs are good at adapting to changes in the law to continue their nefarious activities. It is therefore not unreasonable to assume that such an amendment may result in a change of methodology by the people traffickers, either by targeting vulnerable women to a greater extent or by encouraging illegal migrants to make false claims to seek removal under the Bill.
Amendment 90, spoken to by my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord McColl, relates to the presumption that it is not necessary for a person to remain in the UK to co-operate with an investigation. It is one of the enduring legacies of the Covid pandemic that much more can now be done remotely. We all see this in the changes to the way we work. Even now, some Members of your Lordships’ House take part in debates by videolink. It is simply no longer the case that a victim of crime needs to be in face-to-face contact with police or others to assist with an investigation. There is no reason why, in the majority of cases, such co-operation cannot continue by email, messaging and videoconferencing. The presumption in Clause 21(5) is therefore perfectly proper.
We have provided statutory guidance to support decision-making by caseworkers when determining if there are compelling circumstances why the presumption should be set aside in any particular case. We are considering carefully the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee that such guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Given this, I am not persuaded that the substitution of a regulation-making power would make a material difference.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Sorry—it has taken me a little while to contemplate but is the Minister effectively saying that the use of video and email and so on is as good as in-person interviewing and in-person interventions? I really think that needs to be rethought.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the right reverend Prelate will appreciate, it is the experience of litigators that the use of remote facilities has become very commonplace.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
With respect to the Minister, that is not quite what I was asking. Absolutely, it is happening, but is it as effective?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
That all depends on the facts of each particular case, As I say, that is what will be considered in accordance with the guidance that I have just described.
Where the Home Secretary concludes it is necessary for someone to remain in the UK for the purpose of co-operating with a law enforcement agency, the continued need will be kept under review. Section 65 of the Nationality and Borders Act already provides for the grant of limited leave to remain in such cases. The length of such leave should be considered on a case-by-case basis. As such, it would not be appropriate to provide for an arbitrary minimum period of 30 months, as Amendment 89 seeks to do.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Would the Minister accept that, given the extreme sensitivity of persuading victims in these categories of offences to co-operate in the first place, and the almost full-time pastoral care that they have to be given in the approach to a trial, doing all of this from the countries to which these people are likely to be sent is going to be inordinately difficult?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I do not accept that, because of the advances in technology that I have already described. That is the position in respect of Amendment 89.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Does the Minister not understand that for a victim of crime who is in effect persecuted by the Government by being sent to another country, that is going to have an impact on their likelihood of co-operating with the Government in order to prosecute traffickers?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
One would hope that a victim of trafficking would want to facilitate the prosecution of their traffickers. It is clear, for the reasons I have already set out, that we cannot afford to create any loopholes or exclusions from the scheme.
Amendment 92 seeks to limit the countries to which a person can be safely removed. There is no one international standard to assess a country’s ability to provide support for victims, so we should not be tied to removing potential victims of modern slavery only to signatory countries of the ECHR or ECAT. In addition, this amendment would have the perverse effect of preventing the return of potential victims to their home country where it was safe to do so; I am sure the noble Lord would not want such a block to apply. As I have indicated, our partnership with Rwanda has in place provisions for supporting survivor recovery needs.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, will he do the usual thing, which is to answer reasonable questions that were asked of him, particularly the question I asked about the due diligence carried out in preparation of Schedule 1 and how advice was obtained as to whether it was right to put almost entirely unqualified entries into that schedule?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I had in mind the sage words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the House last week. As the noble Lord will recall, the origins of Schedule 1 were canvassed at length by the Committee in the previous group. The countries listed in the schedule are an amalgam of previous pieces of legislation where the safety of those countries has been established in that legislation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, earlier when referring to ECAT provisions in relation to the amendments I brought forward and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the Minister seemed to say, and I would argue, that applying Article 13(3) of ECAT to a large group of people would go against the spirit and character of ECAT. I think it was never intended to apply to a group but to individuals and that the breadth of application coming from the Minister is a bit of stretch, so I ask him to consider that matter again and maybe come back on Report with an amendment similar to the ones that I proposed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Obviously I hear what the noble Baroness says. Clearly the public order disqualification is capable of being applied in the way that the Government suggest it is here, and of course it is also a matter of individual application—but no doubt those in the department will read what the noble Baroness said. For all those reasons I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend would consider my invitation. If I can arrange it, will he come with me to meet a victim of modern slavery, so he can actually see the people we are talking about who would be potentially affected by this?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Well, I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord, with or without such a victim, to discuss his amendment. I would be happy to do that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
I asked the Minister whether he would meet a victim of modern slavery.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I asked the Minister three questions and, not to my great surprise, I did not get answers to any of them. To focus on one of them: will the famous impact assessment include consideration of the damage to UK communities—or “potential damage”, if the Minister will not acknowledge the damage—done by the failure to be able to prosecute illegal enterprises engaging in modern slavery in the UK?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid I cannot comment on what might or might not be in the impact assessment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, rather than make a lot of different remarks, let me just say this: in my honest opinion, this is no way to do a Bill, particularly one as contentious as this. Numerous questions have been put by Members of your Lordships’ Committee, which the Minister has failed to address. How can we do our job if the Minister fails to engage with what is being said?
For the Government to turn around and say, in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and many other noble Lords have said, that it may be that the impact assessment is available on the first day of Report, is totally and utterly unacceptable. It is simply not good enough for all of us who are considering amendments. Rather than dealing with many of the points put forward, I will say that it is clear that there will be a considerable number—to say the least—of amendments on Report. How can we judge those amendments—how they should be phrased and determined, and which ones are more important—if we have no impact assessment? It is frankly unbelievable to be left in that situation and it is no way to do a Bill.
I read—I did read much of it; my noble friend Lady Kennedy will be pleased—an excellent report by the JCHR. I am going to quote from the summary on the “Role of the JCHR”, because I could not believe it:
“We would have liked the opportunity to have questioned the Home Secretary about this. We invited the Home Secretary to give evidence on the Bill and she was unable to do so”.
This is a flagship Government Bill dealing with something which, as we have just been told, allows derogation from Article 13 of the European convention because the continued small boat migration is a threat to public order. Yet the Home Secretary cannot be bothered to go to the JCHR.
The report goes on to say:
“We also wrote to the Home Secretary with detailed legal questions on the Bill in order to inform our report and requested a response by 24 April 2023. The Home Secretary belatedly responded to us by letter dated 2 June 2023. We therefore did not receive her response before the Bill commenced Committee Stage in the House of Lords. The Home Secretary did not give any explanation for her undue delay in responding to our letter and many of the questions remain unanswered”.
To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the report then says:
“We consider both the delay and her lack of explanation for the delay to be discourteous not just to this Committee but to both Houses of Parliament”.
I could not agree more with that.
We are supposed to be the revising Chamber. The Government lecture us and will say that the elected Government of the day have a right to get their legislation through. Many of us, including me, try to protect that convention, but it is based on a two-way process. That two-way process involves the Government giving all of us the proper information to make our decisions. It depends on Ministers answering questions; it depends on impact assessments being made available so that we can make our judgments. It does not depend on Ministers saying that they think a noble Lord is wrong; that somebody does not get it; somebody is misreading the information; somebody does not understand the statistics. It depends on detailed, logical argument and debate.
I will tell you what that leads to: it leads to better policy. It means that you do not have the ridiculous situation of the Government abandoning a key part of a Bill they only passed a few months ago by Written Statement a couple of days ago. That is where we will get to with this Bill if it is not properly considered. Even under the Government’s own terms it will not work. I say to the Minister that it is not good enough and he needs to reflect on what he is going to do about it.
Baroness Ludford
“Early access to legal aid(1) After paragraph 32A (victims of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour) of Schedule 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 insert— “32B “(1) Civil legal services provided to an individual who is subject to removal to a third country under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or who might reasonably suspect they are subject to removal under that Act, in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism and connected immigration advice and representation, where there is no other provision for this within the scope of legal aid.General exclusions(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule.Specific exclusions(3) The civil legal services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include—(a) advocacy, or(b) attendance at an interview conducted by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism for the purposes of a reasonable grounds decision or a conclusive grounds decision.”(2) In regulation 11(9) of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) (qualifying for civil legal services: cases in which merits criteria do not apply), at end omit the full stop and insert—“(e) or, for an individual who is, or might reasonably suspect they are, subject to removal to a third country under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, in relation to any matter described in paragraph 32B of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism).”(3) In regulation 5(1) of the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/480) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual’s financial resources), after paragraph (r), omit the full stop and insert “and,(s) for an individual who is, or might reasonably suspect they are, subject to removal to a third country under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, civil legal services described in paragraph 32B of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would give individuals subject to, or who might reasonably suspect they are subject to, removal to a third country under this Act access to early specialist legal advice, which is not means- or merits-tested, allowing for informed consent to a trafficking referral. The intention is that potential victims of modern slavery or human trafficking in that position will be able to understand what the NRM is and what it does, and provide informed consent to be referred into it. This expands the support available for advice on referral into the NRM, which is currently only available if you have a matter that falls within scope of certain types of legal aid.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as was mentioned, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is not able to be here today, but I join in the tributes paid by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about his excellent work on the Bill. He very much regrets that he is not able to be here.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has slipped out, but I felt the challenge “follow that”. I fully subscribe to the fantastic riposte that he gave to the Minister. I am afraid I will speak quite a few times today; that is how the cookie has crumbled for the parts of the Bill that I have got involved in—all my prizes are coming at once. I am afraid I do not apologise for that. In response to my noble friend Lord Newby last week, the Chief Whip complained about alleged repetition, including from these Benches. I may not be alone in having heard Dr Hannah White of the Institute for Government on the “Westminster Hour” on the radio last night. She said that, in the other place, the Bill had two days in Committee of the whole House—that is not an ideal process. She said that, normally, you would have expected two weeks in Committee in the past, under the normal processes—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I hear the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who knows those processes. They would take evidence and scrutinise line by line, rather like how we are doing now. The Bill did not get that scrutiny in the other place, so it falls to us. Indeed, Dr White said—I hope I do not paraphrase her wrongly—that the Commons are getting used to kicking the scrutiny down to our Chamber. It seems that the Government are trying to squeeze scrutiny out of us and to bully us into not raising issues here. It comes to something when we poor, aged people—perhaps I had better not go on—are the ones who have to stay until 4.15 in the morning because the Government are trying to bully us out of raising essential issues. These included arbitrary detention powers last week—nothing could be more historic in terms of the dangers of executive overreach. So we have to go on a bit, I am afraid.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am proud to have signed Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I will address my own Amendment 120A, as well as the Clause 4 stand part notice, which is part of this group.
There are many who believe this Bill to be the worst introduced by His Majesty’s Government, formerly Her Majesty’s Government, since they came to power 13 years ago. I agree, although, in my view, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—LASPO, as mentioned by the noble Baroness—which achieved its 10th anniversary on 1 April, comes a close second. That Act, as the Committee knows, took away ordinary people’s ability to access justice in the whole field of social welfare law and offended against fundamental rule of law principles. One of the few areas that retained legal aid in scope was asylum and, to an extent, immigration—even though that has been whittled down over the last 10 years, with dire consequences for the provision of advice and lawyers dealing with asylum cases.
Clause 54, introduced on Report in another place, allows for legal aid to be given to asylum seekers in respect of the Bill; in other words, it brings it within scope. No doubt His Majesty’s Government will claim that this is the act of a principled and caring Government, even though it should be noted, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, just mentioned, that, as drafted, it ensures the provision of civil legal aid services to P only on receipt of a removal notice. It does not confirm or secure access to free legal aid in relation to an asylum or HR claim.
More important than that, however, is the dangerous lacuna in Clause 54. There is an overwhelming danger—almost a certainty, I argue—that the right to legal advice and legal aid will cover up the reality of its actual provision. This is the reason for my amendment. Thanks to the organisation BID, my amendment would impose a duty on the Lord Chancellor to secure civil legal aid services within 48 hours of detention. Without the amendment, there is very little chance that those detained will receive the advice that the law says they are entitled to.
Why do I say this? Here, I am grateful to Jo Wilding. Figures published following a freedom of information request by the Ministry of Justice suggest that in 2021, there was a gap of at least 6,000 people between the number of new asylum applications and the number of new immigration and asylum matters that were actually opened, and for which legal aid was given.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, Clause 54 provides that, under the Bill, recipients of removal notices will have access to certain civil legal services. As your Lordships have rightly pointed out, this would bring them within the scope of legal aid and allow access to legal services in relation to removal notices without the application of the merits criteria and within the timeframe of the Bill.
Despite my respect for the expertise and knowledge of the noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments, I cannot support them. I am concerned that, in extending further the provision of legal aid available under the Bill or the duties under it, Amendments 92A and 120—and Amendment 120A, in its own way—would add more cost and compliance burdens to a system that has already become far less overarching than was envisaged when it was set up.
In my view, legal aid needs to be looked at in its entire context. As matters stand, legal aid is not given in many sorts of cases. Schedule 2 to the Access to Justice Act 1999 excluded categories that had hitherto been included. The LASPO Act 2012 went far further, in that there was a significant removal of cases; indeed, all cases other than those mentioned in its Schedule 1 were removed. This means that cases historically funded by legal aid in this country have been removed.
This affects many people who have lived and worked here—and, indeed, those who have fought wars for this country. Their cases are no longer eligible for consideration for legal aid, which might strike them as unfair and disproportionate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that the system must be seen to be proportionate and fair as well as efficient. However, many cases where a UK citizen may have a just claim or wishes to defend a right are now excluded. For example, in cases of medical negligence, claims are no longer permitted other than those relating to a child who suffers a severe brain injury during pregnancy, childbirth or shortly afterwards.
Legal aid has historically played an important part in poor persons—I am using the words used until 1950—being able to pursue their legal rights without being charged fees, albeit with charges and restrictions made from time to time until 1949, when the system as we know it today began. That change extended eligibility to people of small or modest means, with free aid up to a limit and a merits test for civil cases. As we have heard and as we know, that system has all but disappeared. Means testing is more severe. Some categories have been removed while others have been added. The upshot is that access to legal aid has been reduced significantly. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said about how the system has changed dramatically.
Clause 54 will add another category to the overstretched system. There are reasons for that but, for the reasons I have given, I am not in favour of extending this beyond what is proposed in the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said, proper scrutiny of the Bill rests with this House, as the Commons was not given sufficient time to scrutinise it, so that is what we are determined to do.
Bearing in mind the draconian measures in the Bill, proper legal aid must be provided, including for those referred to the national referral mechanism, particularly in light of the changes introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act that adjusted the reasonable grounds threshold and the standard of proof required—and not just to those served with a removal notice. We also support Amendment 120A to ensure that legal aid is provided, rather than just allowed.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, it seems an extraordinary argument to say that, because British people are denied justice and cannot access legal aid, people seeking asylum should also be deprived of justice. Surely, the answer is to provide justice to everyone who needs it.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments looks at legal aid in the context of the Bill. Prior to a removal notice, the Bill does not provide legal aid to a person in detention in England and Wales. There is no provision for a person awaiting a decision on removal in Northern Ireland and Scotland, so I wonder whether the Minister can say something about the position in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
The Bill provides an extremely short timeframe of eight days for an individual to seek legal advice and representation and provide sufficient instructions for a representative to lodge a suspensive claim with compelling evidence against removal to a third country. The non-government amendments in this group would expand legal aid provisions to persons potentially facing removal. The government figures suggest that around half of asylum seekers already do not have access to legal aid advice, with advice being much harder to obtain outside of London. My noble friend Lord Bach amplified that point very powerfully, when he gave the figure of the gap of 25,000 between the numbers of asylum applicants and legal aid provisions in 2022, showing that about 50% of asylum applicants have no legal advice.
My noble friend also gave a powerful exposition on the background of legal aid following the cuts we saw with the LASPO Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, also acknowledged those cuts, which have been extended from when the LASPO Act originally came into force. As my noble friend Lord Bach summed up very effectively, the overwhelming danger of Clause 54 is that it becomes a sham and a fig-leaf; the rights may be there on paper, but they will never be provided in practice. The amendments in this group are seeking to ameliorate that fear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also summed up this group of amendments very effectively, when she talked about the importance of legal aid for making fair decisions. I agree with her that this will reduce appeals, will let applicants properly understand the process of what is happening to them, and, perhaps above all, will uphold the UK’s reputation as a country which is ruled by law, as people need to understand the laws being applied to them.
This has been a relatively short group, but it goes to the heart of the Bill, because it concerns what is available in practice to people coming over and applying for asylum. They need to understand the situation they are in and that they will be treated fairly. Reflecting on my own time sitting in courts, I say that people may not like the decisions being made, but it is a much better position when they understand them. It will resonate beyond the courtroom itself, if people understanding the decisions being made about them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, it is always a rewarding experience to find oneself largely in agreement with some of the sentiments that have been expressed. On the issue of legal aid, Clause 54 ensures that individuals who receive a removal notice under the Bill have access to free legal advice before removal and, in so providing, it is one of the keystones of the Act. It is absolutely essential that free legal advice is available to persons before removal. That is important for the reasons that have just been given. It is important that people understand the process and that it is a fair and efficient process. No one would disagree with any of those sentiments expressed in the Chamber today.
It is important to emphasise that, unlike most civil legal aid, legal aid in the context of the Bill is being made available without a merits test, nor a means test—as a matter of statutory instrument, that will be provided in due course.
To answer the first question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, we are in close discussions with the authorities in Northern Ireland and Scotland, where I anticipate the position will be exactly the same as it is in England but, obviously, that has to be covered. As has been rightly said, legal aid is, in the context, essential for speedy but fair decision-making. Those basic points are essentially common ground.
I will now deal briefly with the amendments. Government Amendment 119A in this group simply corrects the references to the clauses in the Bill under which advocacy in the Upper Tribunal can take place, and adds a reference to the tribunal procedure rules, since the clause as tabled in the other place at a late stage needs to be corrected in those technical aspects. That is all that Amendment 119A is.
I turn now to Amendment 92A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, which seeks to make provision for legal aid for potential victims of modern slavery subject to removal for possible referral to the NRM. In the Government’s view, this amendment is not required, as Clause 54 already provides free legal advice for anyone issued with a removal notice under the Bill, and that legal aid is available irrespective of the merits or means.
The Committee has just accepted that Clause 21 stand part of the Bill, so I respectfully say that it does not seem correct for me to reopen or rediscuss the various arguments which have been debated at length this afternoon in relation to modern slavery. In practice, if Clause 21 stands part of the Bill, as the Committee has just agreed, the basis for this amendment, in the Government’s submission, largely falls away and it is not at all clear that there is any remaining practical purpose in pursuing the amendment. That is the Government’s position on Amendment 92A.
As far as Amendment 120 is concerned, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, which seeks to ensure the availability of civil legal aid services for various claims, challenges and legal proceedings covered by the Bill, the Government’s position is that Clause 54 already effectively provides for that. The Lord Chancellor already has a statutory duty to ensure that legal aid is made available to individuals where it is required under LASPO. By virtue of Clause 54, legal aid will therefore have to be made available to individuals in receipt of a removal notice, in relation to that removal notice, to take advice in making a suspensive claim either on factual grounds or on grounds of serious irreversible harm. This is, as I said a moment ago, an essential feature of the Bill to ensure fairness to those facing potential removal under the powers in the Bill. There are other existing provisions in LASPO that make legal aid available in relation to protection claims, human rights claims, modern slavery, detention and habeas corpus. But the key need here in this Bill is for legal advice before removal takes place and legal advice in relation to making a suspensive harm claim or a suspensive factual claim.
Finally, Amendment 120A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who I know follows these matters with great interest and great integrity and has over the years been very concerned indeed about the provision of legal aid, highlights the practical importance of making sure legal aid actually is available. The same point has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others. That is a very important aspect that the Government and the Ministry of Justice in particular are fully seized of at the moment. As noble Lords can imagine, it provides a considerable logistical challenge, because it depends on a number of factors: where the potential removees or detainees are; how they can be accessed; who is going to provide the advice; whether there are enough people to do it; whether they are trained up enough; whether it can all be done in the short time limits provided by the Bill. Those are all matters with which the ministry is currently seized. We are working extremely closely with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to ensure that legal aid is really made available to those who need it. I venture to hope, most sincerely, that we are not in a position where any significant proportion of the persons concerned fail to get legal aid. It would not be acceptable, in the Government’s view, for very large numbers of people to be removed without the benefit of legal advice. It is a problem that the Government have to solve and are working to solve.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to take us back to the impact assessment issue, but it would certainly be helpful to know before Report where the Minister’s department is going in relation to the work he referred to. We should have a much clearer idea, by the start of Report, as to the extent to which his department is able to give guarantees that a proper legal aid system would be in place, effective and able to operate.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. It is an entirely reasonable question. I will take it back to the department and do my best to see how far we can satisfy that completely understandable request. The Government accept that legal advice should be available in practice and quickly, and they are working on that with intense attention at the moment but, in relation specifically to Amendment 120A, do not feel it is appropriate or feasible to provide for a statutory obligation to deliver within 48 hours, which is what the amendment calls for.
However, there should be a system that enables people effectively to take advice within the strict periods of time set out in the Bill, which are subject to extension—we do not yet know how that will work, but they can be extended by the Secretary of State and the Upper Tribunal. I hope your Lordships will accept that the general position on legal aid in Clause 54 is a positive provision in the Bill and that removing the means test and merits tests is correct in the circumstances. Properly administered and operated, this will be a very important safeguard for those affected by the provisions in the Bill. I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the relevant amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I welcome Clause 54 being put into the Bill—it is better than it not being there—but several problems arise. First, Clause 54 says in terms of LASPO only that:
“Sub-paragraph (5) does not exclude services provided to an individual who is subject to removal”.
It does not do anything to make sure that that legal aid for advice and representation will appear, which is the reason for the importance of the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Hunt of Kings Hunt, about a duty to provide legal aid, as there is no guarantee. There is also no guarantee that Clause 54 will deliver any legal aid before this Bill comes into force as an Act. What will the Government do in practice to deliver that legal aid?
Secondly, Clause 54 benefits only people who are subject to removal and have, presumably, already had a removal notice. The concern that motivated Amendment 92A was that it should be available not only to individuals who are subject to removal under this Act but to those who might reasonably expect that they would be. They ought to be able to get advice so that they can give informed consent to a trafficking referral; they need to know what the implications and consequences could be. With respect, I do not think the Minister covered either of those points.
Finally, we do not appear to be getting the message across that the better informed and supported people are, the greater the benefit to the Government will be in being able to have faster processes. Clearly, those processes are not working at the moment—we would not have this incredible, appalling backlog if everything was going swimmingly with processing efficiency. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but I think we are inspired by the idea that you could streamline the system and try to avoid delays in highways and byways if people were properly legally informed of their rights. The Minister is a lawyer, so I am sure he gets that point, although unfortunately I have not heard him express it. All that said, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 92A.
Lord Coaker
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the Bill’s restrictions on the provision of modern slavery support to those subject to the provisions in Clause 2.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will not take a great deal of time on this group because quite a number of the points were made in the first group that we discussed today. This group deals with provisions relating to support. Clause 22 deals with the provisions relating to support in England and Wales, Clause 23 with support for Scotland and Clause 24 with support for Northern Ireland. My Amendments 93, 94 and 95, supported by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who has given her apologies today, seek to remove the Bill’s restrictions on the provision of modern slavery support for those subject to the provisions in Clause 2—blanket detention and removal. They would take out subsection (2) of the relevant clause.
Clause 22(2), and the equivalent points in Clauses 23 and 24 as they relate to Scotland and Northern Ireland, is an astonishing provision. It says that:
“Any duty under section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (assistance and support) to secure that any necessary assistance and support is available to the person does not apply in relation to the person”.
Essentially, we are denying assistance and support to potential victims of slavery and trafficking. I cannot believe that we would want to do that, but there it is in the Bill. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I simply want to take that out and at least try to understand what the Government’s logic is with respect to it. This provision means that you cannot be considered a victim, and if you are then you are denied any follow-on support or assistance.
Preventing support for all trafficked victims is disproportionate. As I said earlier—I will not repeat that debate—why not focus on improving administrative efficiency in the asylum system as a whole and the NRM? Currently, as was mentioned in the earlier group, victims of modern slavery are legally entitled to 30 days of support and protection from removal. That is only two days longer than the 28 days for which they are protected, but they are protected and supported to help them recover. It was said at great length, emphatically and well, by many noble Lords that providing victims with support is the only way to build trust and ensure engagement with law enforcement to help with the real criminals—the traffickers. It is also important to the victims in helping them to recover from their trauma.
Clauses 22 to 24 of the Illegal Migration Bill mean that, if you are trafficked into the UK, you will not be treated as a victim. I cannot believe that that is what a British Parliament would want. Nobody who enters the UK irregularly will be able to access support at any point, even if they are exploited in the UK—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and others made when discussing his amendment in the earlier group. If you enter irregularly at some point, and then become a victim of sexual exportation, child labour or forced labour, you will not be able to access any support to deal with that—and that is any irregular arrival, not just by small boats. What assessment did the Government make of the impact of this before stripping away all the support through the provisions contained in the Bill? What is their rationale for this? What assessment have they made of the numbers that may be affected by these changes—including the numbers referred to in the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in the earlier group?
Do the Government not understand or believe that the consequences of this are that trafficked victims of modern slavery, forced labour and sexual exploitation, including children, will be left unsupported in a twilight world, with no money, no housing, no care and no personal support? As I have said before, do the Government themselves not recognise that what they are doing is quite extraordinary—to put it politely? They have included a sunset clause because they realise the extremity of these provisions in the Bill.
As your Lordships have heard and seen, the JCHR condemned this Bill in its recent report and called on the Government to change it. I ask a very simple question of the Government: if the Bill in its current form becomes an Act, how will we identify victims of modern slavery and trafficking? If we do identify them, what support are the Government intending to give them?
This is a significant group of amendments about providing assistance and support to victims of modern slavery and trafficking. The Government intend to take that support away. How can that be right?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, as the proposer of Amendment 96, I have no problems with any of the other amendments in this group. I do not want to repeat the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but will deal specifically, albeit briefly, with Amendment 96.
This amendment looks at the level of support that human trafficking victims receive. As we discussed earlier, it is important that we, as a nation, approach that in a humane and compassionate manner. This amendment deals specifically with the position in Northern Ireland and with setting it at a higher bar than the Government are proposing, for a number of reasons.
First, the amendment reflects the devolutionary settlement for Northern Ireland. While migration and immigration are national issues, modern slavery and human trafficking specifically have been dealt with as a devolved matter and on a devolved basis. It is not something on which a uniform approach has been taken across the United Kingdom, and levels of support for victims in Northern Ireland is not something that has been dealt with in the abstract.
There are many occasions when in Northern Ireland we will seek exactly the same provisions as elsewhere or simply replicate or pay lip service to what is provided elsewhere by repeating it. This has been drilled down on two very detailed occasions in Northern Ireland. As I indicated earlier, we were the first part of the United Kingdom to have specific legislation on human trafficking through the human trafficking Act, which predated the Modern Slavery Act. There was a considerable amount of attention given to it then. In the sometimes febrile, cauldron-like atmosphere of Northern Ireland, it can be difficult to get consensus, but that was something on which there was broad consensus across the Assembly Chamber.
More specifically, in 2022, a major piece of legislation was brought by the Department of Justice. The justice Act dealt with two specific areas—in essence, a range of sexual offences and human trafficking. It was something that the Assembly, both legislatively and in the committee, looked at in considerable detail. I was a member of the Justice Committee when that was going through, and we took availability of the opportunity to get in a wide range of experts to give direct advice on what was needed specifically for Northern Ireland.
What has been put in place and will be enacted in Northern Ireland without this legislation has been designed specifically for Northern Ireland and its particular circumstances. It is one of those areas into which has gone a forensic level of detail. Unfortunately, the Bill would take us in a different direction and leave us with less protection and fewer resources for victims of human trafficking.
Secondly, there is currently some dispute between the Government and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission about the levels of obligation on this topic. We are in no doubt that across the board with this legislation, if it goes through in whatever form, it is likely to be challenged in the courts and to be the subject of litigation. Consequently, if we are to be stuck with it, the position where we can have the greatest level of clarity, certainty and agreement is preferable. If we can resolve that issue by way of the adoption of an amendment such as Amendment 96, it would remove the potential level of dispute. Faced with a choice between the Government’s position and that of the human rights commission, the human rights commission’s position would give greater protection and support for victims of human trafficking. If left with a choice as to what direction we go in, to provide that greater protection is the best possible solution.
Thirdly and finally, the amendment deals with the specific circumstances of Northern Ireland. Clearly, the issue of small boats has featured in a lot of the discussions around the Bill. Northern Ireland, I suppose, geographically in the United Kingdom is as far away from the shores of Kent as one can possibly get. On that basis, where we have small boats coming in, they tend to bring in fish rather than migrants. While the reality is that, as I am sure others have indicated, in many ways there is a common belief across this Chamber and another place that we need to seriously tackle the issue of small boats and clamp down on those exploiting people with that form of migration, with regards to human trafficking, small boats, as has been indicated, are largely a red herring when it comes to the issue of modern slavery. That is not the way that, largely speaking, human traffickers are bringing people to the United Kingdom, and certainly that is the case for Northern Ireland.
However, there is a concern about Northern Ireland’s unique geographical position, which is why we need a greater level of protection. The Prime Minister and others have highlighted the unique advantage of Northern Ireland in many ways, in that we have a border with the European Union and access therefore, through the common travel area, to the European Union, particularly the Republic of Ireland. We are also part of the United Kingdom, which means we have full access to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a danger that human traffickers will see Northern Ireland as a potential best of both worlds, which will be to the detriment of Northern Ireland and particularly of those who are going to be transported by human traffickers. That is a danger that we need to see off, and the fact that there has been a considerable increase in the number of victims of human trafficking referred to the NRM from Northern Ireland shows that this is something that human traffickers are alive to.
We all hope to reach a day in this society when the number of victims of human trafficking, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, is set at zero, but we are living, unfortunately, in a world where this is an increasing crime rather than one that is reducing. The level of resources and support that need to be given to victims potentially coming to Northern Ireland has to act as a support for the victim but has also to act as a virtuous circle, because the greater the level of support and resilience that we can give to those victims, the better chance we have of catching the perpetrators and preventing this in the long run. Therefore, I urge the Committee to support the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Morrow.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 94 and the intention of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol to oppose Clause 23 standing part. I shall concentrate on the Bill’s implications for the Scottish Parliament, as it will bring some of the most offensive parts of this legislation relating to victims into Scotland.
Devolution Guidance Note 10 states that a Bill requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it
“contains provisions applying to Scotland and which are for devolved purposes, or which alter the legislative competence of the Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers”.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to support the removal of Clauses 22 to 24 and 27, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, many of the arguments are similar to those related to Clause 21, so we will not repeat them.
Clauses 22 to 24 carry through the logic of Clause 21 and remove protections and support from those who, crucially, have already been identified and assessed as having reasonable grounds to be considered a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. These victims are not self-identified or -assessed. They have to be referred by a first responder agency, such as the police, and assessed by the competent authority.
The insidious nature of applying these provisions retrospectively is that there are people now in safe houses who are receiving specialist support to rebuild their lives or to build a legal case against their abuser that might be used by law enforcement. To have those protections and support removed from them before a conclusive grounds decision can be reached on their case seems cruel. Someone who has potentially just escaped an abusive situation and has been assessed by a first responder and the Home Office as having a reasonable case and who is for the first time receiving support from a specialist agency could be told out of the blue that support is withdrawn and they are subject to detention and removal. To deter one group of people, we will wash our hands of a much larger group who did not arrive by boat or even necessarily of their own volition.
The long and short of these clauses is that to weed out an unknown and unproven level of abuse, and without any evidence that it will deter Channel crossings, we will be simply abandoning victims. We will be doing so in a thoroughly dramatic and cruel way by withdrawing support that has been offered. I cannot see this is justifiable, still less desirable, and I ask the Minister to consider the clauses in their entirety.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am not going to repeat the points that I made on the first group because they apply in a very similar way to the amendments in this group, which in our case amounts to opposition to the clauses standing part of the Bill.
In the first group, I strayed into Clauses 25 and 26, which should really be here—the revolving door of a revolving sunset. A point I did not make was how much scope the Secretary of State has to keep on altering the direction of how things go with minimum scrutiny because, to me, scrutiny should include an opportunity to make changes. So much is dealt with by regulations. All the clauses on modern slavery are part of a whole, which, as a whole, we oppose. The Bill does nothing to tackle modern slavery and trafficking, does away with support for many victims and damages the UK’s reputation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who spoke earlier, I do not much like the term “world leading”, but that was what people were saying of us not so very long ago.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, a number of years ago, I chaired an inquiry in Scotland for the Equality and Human Rights Commission of the United Kingdom to look into the position of trafficking in Scotland because it was a surprise that at that time there had not been any prosecutions. Was this because there was no problem in Scotland, or was something happening with regards to investigations?
I want the Committee to know that after many years of practice at the Bar, doing some of the most shocking and desperate cases, the experience of chairing that inquiry into modern slavery was revelatory to me in hearing evidence—particularly, of course, from women who had been sexually used, and used in the most horrifying ways, where their whole days were spent servicing men. Afterwards, they needed to be looked after, cared for and encouraged to believe that their families back in the countries from which they had come would not be punished if they were to testify in a court of law. The threats that they had experienced were of such a kind that they lived in terror of those who had victimised and trafficked them.
I really do feel—I heard earlier one of the Conservative Back-Benchers asking the Minister whether he had ever met anyone who had been trafficked—that meeting those who have been trafficked is a shocking business. It also goes on to those who, for example, are subjected to slavery within the domestic environment, who are worked almost to death. They are brought over from other countries, live in households in which they are expected to get up at the crack of dawn and work through until the wee small hours of the following day, and are not rewarded—their wages are supposed to go to their family back somewhere else. The accounts that one hears are just shocking.
The fear that people have, which has to be catered for in having them give testimony in a court of law against those who have been their traffickers, is such that to be removing all of that is just shocking. It is unbelievable to people in other parts of the world. My work has now changed; it is now in international law, and everywhere I go people are shocked by Britain, which led the way on this and was so inventive in creating this legislation. Other countries are now saying “What is Britain thinking about?”, and we are really uncertain as to what the Government are thinking about.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly as a co-signatory to Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weir. I suspect it will not surprise anyone in your Lordships’ Committee that I have a real passion about modern slavery. I had the experience on one occasion of meeting a victim, and I listened to a story that I was never prepared for.
What that victim told me about how she was treated was quite horrendous. She was treated as a commodity, with no respect; indeed, she did not even get food, never mind anything else. I have seen some difficult cases in all my years in politics because I have been in it nearly as old as I am; it seems that way. But the day that lady came to Stormont, met me and told me her horrendous story, I said that as long as I live, I will always make an effort to do something, moderately little as it may be, to fight this awful cancer of human trafficking. So it is extremely disturbing, as I said at Second Reading, that the plans of the devolved Administrations and their modern slavery strategies are now undermined by the Bill.
When I first consulted on my Private Member’s Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2012—it became the trafficking Act in January 2015—it was shortly after the UK had signed the EU trafficking directive, and a significant part of my Bill was to ensure that the rights within the directive could be enacted in Northern Ireland. At Second Reading of my Bill, nearly 10 years ago now, I said that the directive
“makes a number of effective proposals, which, if we choose to put them into law, would have a positive effect for vulnerable victims. Many of the proposals in the Bill directly seek to implement the directive into our law.”
I went on to say that the Assembly
“should seek fulsome implementation of the directive and, indeed, the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings”.
I believe that the Assembly met that objective when the Act was passed in January 2015. It is therefore with deep regret that, 10 years on from my Second Reading speech, I am seeing that good work being undone, justified by a tenuous interpretation of the European trafficking convention, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, made reference to earlier—a view which was described as “untenable” by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report published at the weekend.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said when he introduced this group of amendments, it is quite extraordinary to deny assistance and support to the victims of modern slavery, as provided by Section 50(1)(a) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, it is cruel to do this.
Modern slavery is a devolved matter in relation to the support provided to victims, yet the Bill appears to undermine devolution in overruling the provision of support provided in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It was very interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme, quite rightly highlighting the issues facing Northern Ireland, with its border with the European Union and the common travel area. It was even more interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, about how this Bill potentially conflicts with EU directives that Northern Ireland is still subject to. It will be very interesting to hear the Minister’s answers on the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in particular.
In asking the Minister to justify these provisions, both in terms of denying support and in terms of devolution, I am very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said about the impact that meeting victims of modern slavery had on them. I wonder whether the Minister, who I think previously suggested that he had not met a victim of modern slavery, or anybody involved in the drafting of these provisions, has met a victim of modern slavery—bearing in mind the impact it has had on the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said, we do not believe that Clauses 22, 23, 24 and 27 should stand part of this Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, this group of amendments relates to the provision of support to potential victims of modern slavery. We have, of course, recently had an extensive debate about the application of the public order disqualification to those who meet the conditions in Clause 2 of the Bill. I will not go over the same ground again, save to say that it is a necessary consequence of the provisions in Clause 4 that the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for removal of persons who meet Clause 2 conditions should apply regardless of whether the person claims to be a victim of modern slavery.
It follows that, for the provisions of this Bill to work as intended, individuals who arrive illegally in the UK and receive a positive reasonable grounds decision must be disqualified from the protections of the national referral mechanism. Clause 22 gives effect to this principle for England and Wales by disapplying the duties on the Secretary of State, under Section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to provide necessary assistance and support to potential victims during the recovery period. Clauses 23 and 24 have the same effect in relation to corresponding legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. Clause 27 then makes the necessary consequential changes to the relevant legislation that applies in each part of the United Kingdom.
If an individual arrives in the UK illegally and a first responder suspects that they may be a victim of modern slavery, they will still refer that individual into the NRM and that person will receive a reasonable grounds decision. That process will not change under the Bill. However, as I set out before in relation to Clause 21, Article 13 of ECAT envisages that the obligation on signatory states to provide assistance and support to potential victims may be withheld on grounds of public order. This is precisely what Clauses 22 to 24 give effect to as a result of the public order threat arising from the current scale of illegal entry into the United Kingdom by people undertaking dangerous and unnecessary channel crossings in small boats. That means that they will not benefit from the protections otherwise afforded to potential victims of modern slavery, subject to the exception set out in Clause 21, which we have debated at some length.
It is right that the Government take meaningful steps to ensure that these illegal and dangerous channel crossings are stopped and that any incentives to enter the UK by such means are closed off. That is what these clauses seek to do. Clauses 22 to 24 operate subject to the same exception as Clause 21 in relation to those potential victims who are co-operating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in relation to their alleged exploitation, and it is necessary for them to remain in the UK to provide such co-operation.
The effect of Amendments 93, 94, 95 and 96 is no different in practice from proposition by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to strike out these clauses as a whole. The amendments effectively gut Clauses 22 to 24, such that the existing requirements relating to the provision of support would continue to apply. It will therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords that I cannot commend these amendments to the Committee.
In response to the devolution points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, I remind the Committee that immigration and nationality are reserved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and therefore matters for the UK Government. It is also our view that the modern slavery clauses also deal specifically with the reserved matter of immigration, and they are for a reserved purpose. As for the Bill as a whole, they would not therefore engage the legislative consent process.
I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that anyone who has arrived illegally in the UK on or after 7 March and before commencement would in this period receive support as now.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that support for people who have been trafficked and involved in modern slavery is a devolved issue?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, I am afraid that is not the view of the Government. These provisions are in a measure that relates to a reserved issue.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me, but I am just answering this point. So it is the Government’s view that the provisions in this Bill fall within the reserved matter that I described a moment ago.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
The specific issue that was raised was about support for victims of human trafficking, which clearly is a devolved matter—or alternatively the legislation, for example, that was passed through the Assembly last year would have been ruled out of order and incompetent on that basis. It dealt specifically with the levels of support that victims of human trafficking would receive.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that, in that context, the Assembly had competence to consider those issues. However, in the context of the overall Bill, this measure deals with immigration. Therefore, for the reasons I gave, the measures fall within the competence of the United Kingdom Government.
The current rate of dangerous and unnecessary small boat channel crossings represents a clear and present threat to public order, justifying our invoking the relevant provisions of ECAT. They risk lives and place unprecedented and unsustainable pressure on our public services—housing, health, education, welfare and others. The Government are right to take the necessary measures in the Bill to remove the clear opportunities to misuse our modern slavery protections in order to frustrate the duty to remove in Clause 2. On that basis, I commend these clauses to the Committee and invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the Minister sits down and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, jumps up, could I ask the Minister something? Unless I was being inattentive, in which case I apologise, I am not sure that he answered the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow, about the Windsor Framework—which is to be known as the Northern Ireland protocol—the duties in it and the application of EU law. He mentioned the trafficking directive and the victims directive. How is the Bill compatible with those obligations in Northern Ireland? If I have got it wrong, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, will correct me.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My understanding is that the measures are compatible with the Windsor Framework, but I will take that point back to the department and will write to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who contributed to the debate. I will come to the more general point about assistance and support as they relate to Clause 22, but I will first respond to the noble Lords, Lord Weir and Lord Morrow, and my noble friends Lady Bryan and Lady Kennedy. I am not sure about this, so can the Minister go back and check that it is right? From all my reading about devolution, I think that everyone accepts and understands that immigration is a reserved matter. I find it really difficult to understand why, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, the devolved Administrations’ ability to enhance support is not a devolved matter. I do not understand why, if they choose to do more to support a victim of trafficking, they cannot do so. I respectfully ask the Minister to check that that is the case, because I cannot believe it is.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That would be helpful, looking at the incredulity on the faces of the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Weir.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
A year ago, I conducted an inquiry into a horrifying set of events that took place in Glasgow during Covid, involving refugees and asylum seekers. Support was given then by the local authority to the asylum seekers in Glasgow. In addition, there was a migrant helpline, which was pretty hopeless, emanating from the Home Office—it was outsourced—but most of the social work on the ground was done by the local authority.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy for that. Asking the Minister to check this is helpful. It will no doubt be in his notes that it is the case, but, given the experience of devolved matters of noble Lords, it would be helpful for the Committee if that were checked and confirmed one way or the other.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 12th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that due regard is given to other international agreements when indefinite leave to remain is considered by the Secretary of State under Clause 8AA(5).
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am going to do two things that the Government Chief Whip does not like. First, I am going to take a little time over my remarks in moving this amendment. Secondly, I am going to read my speech, because these are very complicated matters in Clauses 29 to 36 and I want to be sure that I am covering what are quite dense political points. What we are doing at the moment is not just a question of opining on an issue of the day; we are actually analysing crucial legal provisions in a piece of legislation so I do not apologise.
I shall speak once in a single contribution covering my clause stand part on every clause in this section of the Bill and my Amendments 98ZA and 98EA to Clauses 29 and 35 respectively. The clauses are extremely important and, in my view, regrettable provisions. They are pernicious in depriving refugees who ever met the four conditions in Clause 2 of any chance, long term, of integrating into and contributing to our society by denying them any prospect of settlement or citizenship, with few exceptions. British citizenship enables a person to live and work in the UK permanently, vote, hold public office and participate fully in British life in a way that no other type of status allows.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, focus specifically on those entitled to various kinds of British citizenship who need to register to secure recognition of that, and I pay tribute to their work on this, which I know has a particular focus on children.
I am taking a global view of the operation of this section of the Bill, whether on entry, leave to remain or any kind of citizenship, whether by registration or naturalisation, because the issues are interrelated. The clauses impose lifelong prohibitions on lawful re-entry or gaining leave to remain in the UK and on grants of citizenship, as opposed to the maximum 10-year re-entry ban under the current Immigration Rules. They are an extension of the whole deterrence agenda and are in conflict with several international obligations. The clauses breach Article 8 of the ECHR and the right to private and family life because they are axiomatically disproportionate. A blanket ban allows for no individual consideration whatever, such as in no possible circumstances could you ever be granted status. The UK has, for instance, certain positive obligations under Article 8 to allow family reunification, such that failure to allow a relevant individual to reunite with their family members by entering or settling in the UK could breach those obligations. The breach of Article 8 ECHR could even escalate to a breach of Article 3, which bans torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. It is also unclear, as a practical matter, where the Home Secretary has determined that a human rights claim or asylum claim is inadmissible by virtue of Clause 4, how an individual could apply to the Secretary of State for an exception to be made in their case. Perhaps the Minister could put me right on that point.
The Bill is in a multitude of ways incompatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the right of children to a nationality, prohibits discrimination and requires that the child’s best interests are counted as a primary consideration in actions concerning them. The Bill is also incompatible with current UK law, such as the Children Act 1989.
The JCHR, which I thank for its excellent report published yesterday—in which, as I am no longer on the committee, I had no part—highlights the legal problems with the Home Secretary’s discretionary exception-making powers. Giving her discretion to act in accordance with the UK’s international obligations also means giving her power to act in breach of them, and a refusal to exercise discretion may not be capable of an effective challenge. The UNHCR says:
“In order to bring this section of the Bill into line with the UK’s obligations under international law, the exceptions to the ineligibility for all forms of leave and for citizenship should be based on compliance … with European Convention on Human Rights and other international agreements and those decisions should not be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State”.
Where a breach of the UK’s international obligations would otherwise occur, the Home Secretary should surely be under a duty to make an exception, rather than have a discretion to do so. If a person entered the UK by irregular means but could not, for whatever reason, be removed, Clause 29 in conjunction with Clause 4 would prevent them from regularising their stay in the UK, leaving them in perpetual immigration limbo and would of course be the prelude to their having no chance of access to citizenship. Depending on the length of the delay and the private and family ties they have generated during that delay, this could violate the UK’s positive obligations under Article 8 of the ECHR, the refugee convention, the convention against statelessness and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to name but the most obvious ones.
UNHCR comments that, as at present the UK is effectively unable to remove asylum seekers to third countries:
“It is entirely foreseeable—and in Clause 29-36, expressly foreseen—that many refugees and stateless people who will be ineligible for any form of leave to remain will nonetheless remain in the UK for extended periods of time, if not indefinitely, trapped ‘on the margins’ of society”.
Throughout proceedings on the Bill, beginning with Second Reading, many of us have raised this worry about people being left in limbo. Because we lack the impact assessment from the Government, we all have to go on the one from the refugee commissioner, which estimates that there could be 200,000 people within three years, marginalised, in limbo, destitute—really healthy for our society.
Even if the Home Secretary exercised her discretion to grant some form of leave eventually, anyone who had ever been subject to the removal duty would be permanently ineligible from becoming a British citizen through several of the main routes available under the British Nationality Act 1981. However, Article 34 of the refugee convention requires contracting states as far as possible to
“facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees”.
The impact on children of a lifelong prohibition on re-entry or gaining leave to remain could be particularly severe and is difficult to reconcile with the UK’s international and domestic obligations. Consideration of the best interests of an individual child is absent from Clause 29, but how can a blanket ban be in the best interests of a child for the purposes of either Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or, domestically, the Children Act 1989 or Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009?
The Government have acknowledged that children affected by this Bill
“will rarely qualify for citizenship”
if they or a relevant family member are subject to Clause 2. The JCHR considers that this seems to contravene Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the discrimination or punishment of a child on the basis of the status of or activities of their parents or guardians. Where the child, as will of course be the case, will have had no control over their parents or the decisions which led to them arriving in the UK irregularly, the automatic imposition of a lifelong ban which they then have to convince the Home Secretary to reverse seems to fall within the definition of a punishment. Can the Minister tell me how Clause 29 is compliant with the Supreme Court case of Zoumbas and subsequent case law on the issues concerning children’s best interests in an immigration context? How can routine application to children of a blanket ban on entry and leave to remain without consideration of their particular circumstances possibly be lawful?
I am on my last page. The Home Secretary’s discretion under Clause 29 when deciding whether to lift a ban on limited leave to remain has to be exercised so as to avoid a breach of the ECHR or any other international agreement to which the UK is a party but, in a similar situation with regard to a grant of indefinite leave, only conformity with the ECHR is said to be relevant. Perhaps the Minister can explain the contrast between those two situations in Clause 29, because I have not managed to pin down the rationale. My Amendment 98ZA in any case adds in other international agreements so as to align the two legs of Clause 29 on leave to remain.
Many children, either because they arrived unaccompanied as a small child or because removal has not been possible in practice, may be born or spend their entire childhood here and have a solely British identity. The Bill would mean previously acceptable routes to citizenship, such as the discretionary route or the settled route, being either blocked or fundamentally altered. The 10-year route would be possible in theory but, for children whose parents were irregular entrants, those parents could be prohibited from obtaining leave to remain, citizenship and employment, thus creating instability and poverty in the child’s life.
The Bill would also put stateless children at significant risk. If a relevant family member was an irregular entrant subject to Clause 2, they and the stateless child would be subject to mandatory removal, jeopardising the child’s years of residency and potentially condemning the child to a lifetime without citizenship. Clause 35 as originally introduced would in fact have allowed the Home Secretary to make an exception and grant nationality if there were compelling circumstances or it was necessary to comply with the UK’s obligations under not just the ECHR but any other international agreement to which the UK is a party. However, unaccountably, that latter part has been removed, risking the UK being in breach of its legal obligations under those other international agreements.
Even if ECHR grounds are not established, the UK’s legal obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child may be breached under the prohibition of discrimination or punishment of a child on the basis of the activities of their parents; I have referred to this. This backwards redrafting appears to have eliminated an avenue for stateless people, refugees and others to obtain British nationality in reliance on the refugee convention, the statelessness conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Can the Minister explain, therefore, why the Government have narrowed the available exceptions between the original draft of the Bill, as considered in the other place, and the Bill as it came to this House? I hope that, unless a convincing answer can be given, this House will see fit at a later stage to seek to restore the grounds for making exceptions under Clause 35 to the version introduced in the other place; namely, on the grounds of both the ECHR and any other international agreement.
I hope that I have explained sufficiently why these Benches have tabled amendments and clause stand part notices, which would remove all the clauses in this part of the Bill and at least bring the Home Secretary’s exercise of discretion in line with international law. I beg to move.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments in this group in my name; namely, Amendments 98A to 98H. I also oppose Clauses 33 and 34 standing part; those notices stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I have added my name to them. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for each of my amendments and the clause stand part notices. This is a coherent suite of amendments: they do one thing but are necessary to do that thing throughout a whole section of the Bill that, in essence, covers Clauses 30 to 36, which stand together as a form of deprivation. I am grateful to Amnesty for its assistance in drafting these amendments; I should also say right at the outset that I am grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Murray, for the time he gave to a meeting in advance for us to discuss them.
The essence of what is happening is that the Bill has a two-step deterrence mechanism. It is frankly and openly deterrent, designed to deter people from setting off on a certain course. The first step in that deterrence, and to my mind a very powerful one, is the prospect of rapid removal from the United Kingdom to another country. Coming on top of the money that people have paid, as they have in many cases, to cross the channel or for whatever their mode of arrival, I would have thought that the prospect of immediate removal is a very significant deterrent indeed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 98I on the status of Hong Kongers with British national (overseas) status. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who cannot be in his place this evening, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans —I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham may be deputising for him—and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for signing this amendment. I particularly thank the Hong Kongers who have talked to us, Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens for their assistance. In the spirit of co-operation, I wrote to the Minister last week setting out the problem that many BNO passport holders face to give him advanced notice.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, talked about the amendments that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have tabled as focusing right down. I am going even further down to one highly specific group where a problem has emerged which seems to breach the British Nationality Act. I hope to be proved wrong and that the Minister can give us some assurances, but the experience of these BNO nationals who have had children born in the UK recently, most of whom are under five years old, is that they are being told by government officials and staff that their children must apply to Chinese diplomatic missions for Chinese travel documents as they are not entitled to any other form of travel document provided in the UK because their parents are not yet full British citizens, even though they are BNO nationals who are waiting to complete the necessary time before applying for settled status and thereafter, as is their right under the law, becoming full UK citizens. Even if that were not the case—if for any reason their parents did not go for that—these children, because they are born here, would be entitled to apply for UK citizenship after being here for 10 years. One official told a Hong Konger parent that their child would have to take the UK citizenship test.
That is clearly mad. Whatever Border Force and Home Office immigration officials are saying, it is utterly confusing. This is a small community who relied on the United Kingdom, which ran their country for many years and allowed the status of BNO to signify that we accepted that status, with everything else that follows from it, including the right to settled status and, in the slightly longer term, the right to UK citizenship.
To be clear, Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act provides the child with the right to be registered as a British citizen if either parent becomes settled or a British citizen. To be generous, perhaps this is confusion among officials about the gap before the parents are recognised as being settled. However, that application must be made before the child turns 18. Section 1(4) provides the child with the right to be registered as a British citizen if the child remains resident in the UK until the age of 10. Some absences during those first 10 years are permitted. I am saying that because the officials are also telling these parents that if their children leave the UK, they will not be entitled to anything, which is contrary to the British Nationality Act.
Registration under either of these is by right. It is not for the Home Secretary’s discretion. If the requirement is to exercise that the rights are met, the Home Secretary is required to register the child as a British citizen. Can the Minister confirm the earliest point at which a child born in the UK to a BNO national en route to settlement can expect to be able to secure their own connection to the UK, and by what means? Surely the answer is in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
There is another related matter. There are dependents of those with BNO passports who arrived with HKSAR passports before the current BNO scheme was fully devised. For some, their passports are likely to expire before they achieve their five-year route to settlement. At the moment, they are getting the same response from immigration officials as parents with newborn children regarding their status—that they should approach the Chinese authorities for travel documents. It seems that for dependents with HKSAR passports there is another gap in the system. Quite often these are vulnerable people, sometimes elderly dependents or parents who have come with their children. They are not expecting to return to Hong Kong now.
There is another important point. Many of the Hong Kongers who have arrived here under this status are here because they are perceived as dissidents in Hong Kong under the new regime. Yesterday, in Southampton, two Hong Kongers were attacked by three pro-Chinese Communist Party men, allegedly Chinese students at the University of Southampton, where this happened.
We know, because of the behaviour of the Chinese consulate in Manchester some months ago, that these people are at real risk of attack. For any UK official to tell them to go and get documents from the Chinese is the most extraordinary thing I have ever heard. So I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that officials need to be briefed. If that is not the case, perhaps he could set out exactly why not. But most importantly, I wonder whether the Minister will meet with me, other signatories to my amendment and some BNO passport holders to further discuss this issue, so that the Home Office understands what is going on.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also in the clause stand part debates, to which I was pleased to add my name. He has made the case so clearly and powerfully that I need say only a few words, but I do want to emphasise the significance of these amendments, from the perspective of both citizenship—the practical and symbolic importance of which we debated last year during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill—and of children, who are, as we have heard, the main victims of these clauses that deny citizenship rights in perpetuity.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, said in the Supreme Court, the “intrinsic importance of citizenship” should never be played down. I thus agree with the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty that the provisions are “profoundly misconceived and harmful”. A theme running through our proceedings has been the Bill’s failure to give primary consideration to the best interests of children, as required by the UN convention and Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Bill’s citizenship provisions, which really have no place in a Bill focused on irregular migration, target children in a way that is both discriminatory and punitive. Not surprisingly, this is of profound concern to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which advises that this is a
“fundamentally discriminatory approach to citizenship acquisition”
and potentially, as we have already heard, in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR. Babies and children will be subject to a “harsh and life-determining penalty” for an immigration breach when they were minors.
Of course, it is deemed to be immaterial that the breach was due to their parents’ rather than their own actions. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission warns that the provisions risk discriminating against a child for the actions of a parent, contrary to Article 2 of the UNCRC—a warning echoed in the JCHR report. I also congratulate the JCHR on getting this out so quickly, especially as the Home Secretary apparently did not answer until the last second. In fact, we had already started in Committee before the committee received her reply to its questions, sent some time ago, I believe.
The UNHCR makes a similar point in arguing that punishing a child for the actions of a parent in this way runs counter to Article 34 of the refugee convention, Article 32 of the 1954 convention, and Articles 3 and 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is an example of how the Bill puts at risk the safety and welfare of children.
I will just give an example—a hypothetical example of how it might work—from the Project and Amnesty. Thomas is brought to the UK as a child. He is so neglected or abused by his parents that the local authority is compelled to apply for, and is granted, a full care order. He is now growing up in the care of the UK state, and his future properly now lies here, meaning that he may be registered as a British citizen under Section 3(1). However, if his entry to the UK was without permission, he will be permanently excluded from his citizenship rights by Clause 31(2). You can hardly blame the child for what has happened.
Both the UNHCR and the JCHR argue that Clause 35 —which, as we heard, gives the Secretary of State the power not to treat a person as ineligible for British citizenship if this is necessary to comply with the ECHR—should be not discretionary but based on compliance or otherwise with the ECHR. The PRCBC and Amnesty argue that the link here is inappropriate —they may well be right—but, if it is going to be made, it should revert to the original wording, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in Amendment 98EA. The JCHR expresses puzzlement as to why the Government chose to narrow the available exceptions originally listed, thereby risking contravening international law obligations other than those arising from the ECHR. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked, can the Minister now explain the justification for doing so?
In conclusion, once again this Government are showing disregard for the importance of citizenship and for the best interests of children. As they have made one welcome concession in this area, I hope that they will accept the strength of the case for removing entitlement to citizenship entirely from the Bill, or, at the very least—and it is the very least—reverting to the original wording of Clause 35.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling Amendment 98I, and I thank Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens for their steadfast support for those who wish to register as British citizens. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who added his name, was here earlier in the day but was unable to stay through to the evening.
This amendment aims to tackle a matter of great significance that affects the lives of many individuals residing in the UK under British national overseas visas. They include many people from Hong Kong who are rightly entitled to British citizenship but face serious uncertainty about their legal status. Many Hong Kongers have reported appalling responses from immigration officials regarding their children born here, being told that they cannot have any travel documentation and even querying whether they are allowed to become British citizens in the future.
We all know the turmoil and uncertainty that has plagued the people of Hong Kong in recent years—many have been subjected to unimaginable hardships, fearing for their safety and the future of their families—so it is concerning that so many face anxiety about the citizenship status of their children. The people of Hong Kong have shown immense courage and resilience against Beijing’s totalitarian regime, and many of those who have come to the UK face profound challenges, including concern about the safety and security of their families living abroad. The nature of the treatment of protesters and dissidents by the Chinese Communist Party means that many of them are now permanently settling in the UK. This amendment is, simply, testament to our support for the people of Hong Kong, and it ensures that their status is not subject to further confusion.
All the way through Committee, it has appeared that the Minister and his team have set their face against accepting any amendments whatever. Here, I suggest, are two—the well and clearly argued one from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and this one from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—on which they could really give something tonight.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords will see, my name is attached to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and I support it. I am a patron of both Hong Kong Watch and another human rights organisation, The 29 Principles, relating to what is happening in Hong Kong and China. I, too, have been lobbied by many young people and Hong Kong families here, who have fled because of the threats to their safety back in Hong Kong. They face great difficulties and uncertainties around the status of their children. I will not rehearse all of the arguments that noble Lords have heard.
Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, make an eloquent argument about the whole business of citizenship, and listening to my noble friend Lady Lister, I support this clause stand part proposition. Our special relationship with Hong Kong, and our special duties and responsibilities concerning those people, should be at the forefront of this Government’s mind.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 95EA in the name of my noble friend Lady Ludford. The amendment seeks to ensure that all UK obligations under EU law are considered when persons are considered for ineligibility in terms of the rights to entry or citizenship.
As my noble friend said, the consideration of rights under the ECHR raises a number of concerns, such as in relation to Articles 2, 3 and 8. This includes, for example, the right to family reunion, the right for individual circumstances to be considered, and even the rights of safety and not to be tortured. The need to consider the best interests of children is a priority under the ECHR as well as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Indeed, the Government have acknowledged that children affected by the Bill will rarely qualify for citizenship, so it is difficult to see how provisions in the Bill are in the best interests of children, as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The right to citizenship is the means by which an individual is able to construct a life, settle, earn a living and feel at home in their circumstances. However, individuals fulfilling Clause 2 conditions will be denied those things. They will most likely be kept in a form of limbo, waiting to be moved elsewhere. Ineligibility for citizenship is particularly important for children, who, in effect, will be denied a future by this Bill through no fault of their own.
The Bill does not comply with many of the UK’s international obligations and penalises the most vulnerable and threatened people. The safeguards of ministerial discretion to protect people from breaches of international law are inadequate, as the report of the JCHR makes clear in its recommendations. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those recommendations.
We have heard from noble Lords some of the punitive measures in the Bill, so how could any of us support what the Government propose in terms of treatment of children? How can it be right to punish children for the activities of their parents? That is unjust and insupportable. To flout international law is deplorable, as it condemns many who have already suffered to more injustice. The Joint Committee has exposed the inadequacy of the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider its recommendations.
As others have said, the systematic wrecking of long-supported safeguards for the protection of refugees and asylum seekers is totally unacceptable. The potential for the contravention of international obligations has been clearly established by the JCHR, and is the basis for Amendment 98EA and many other amendments in this part of the Bill, which deserve our support. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford has fully explained our reasons why Clauses 29 to 36 should not stand part of the Bill. The lifelong prohibition on status is disproportionate; extending the prohibition to children, who may not have had any choice in their irregular arrival in the UK, is both unfair and unlawful.
As my noble friends Lady Ludford and Lady Janke have said, these provisions will produce a permanent underclass who are unable to work and reliant on the state. We believe that these provisions are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989.
We also support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and my noble friend Lady Brinton, on the narrow issues affecting citizenship by registration and British national overseas citizens, particularly the children of those settling here from Hong Kong and their inability to acquire travel documents.
We believe that Clauses 29 to 36 should not stand part of the Bill, and we also support my noble friend Lady Ludford’s Amendment 98EA, to ensure that the Home Secretary has to comply with all international agreements and not just the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, as we have just heard, Clauses 29 to 36 place a permanent bar on those who fall within the scheme outlined in Clause 2 from lawfully travelling to the UK or securing settlement or British citizenship through naturalisation or registration; this is subject only to exceptions to comply with international agreements or where there are compelling circumstances. If the Bill fails to succeed in its aim of removing people, there will likely be a whole class of people stuck in the UK for extended periods without access to a system through which they can obtain lawful status. Therefore, they will be unable to work or rent a home. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, expanded on this point eloquently. To sum up the noble Baroness’s speech: she wants compliance with international law. We support her Amendment 98EA.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, gave a clear exposition of the Government’s intentions with this Bill, and on the different statuses on the second step, as he put it—the ban on acquiring citizenship by naturalisation but also by registration. As he said eloquently, registration is not a concession or a reward for good behaviour but an entitlement. His amendment seeks to address that point, with particular examples given in his speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also spoke about the specific cases of Hong Kongers and BNOs, and how this Bill could cut across—or seems to cut across—their potential rights. My noble friend Lady Lister, who added her name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, attacked the problem from the perspective of concern for children who could be subject to this ban because of the actions of their parents. As she rightly argued, this is not fair on those children; she wants to revert to the original wording of Clause 35.
We support the amendments in this group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. It has been particularly illuminating; I have noted the quality of the speeches and hope that I can answer the questions that have been put in relation to these clauses.
Clauses 29 to 36 prevent a person who has entered the United Kingdom unlawfully, and meets the conditions in Clause 2, being able to lawfully re-enter the UK, secure settlement or become a British national through naturalisation or most registration routes. A person who arrives in the UK illegally should not be able to make the UK their home and eventually settle here. Settlement in the UK confers significant benefits, such as the freedom to study, work and access healthcare and public funds; of course, it is also a pathway to British citizenship which, in turn, confers further benefits.
Allowing someone who arrives in the UK illegally to settle clearly creates an incentive for people to make those dangerous journeys. It is a vital part of the deterrent effect that those categories should be included. This is because people taking advantage in that way is unfair. It is unfair on those who play by the rules and come here legally, it is unfair on those who are genuinely in need, as it constrains our capacity to help, and it is unfair on the British public.
Clause 29 precludes people who meet the conditions in Clause 2 from ever settling here and, once removed, being able to re-enter. This is achieved by preventing them from being granted any form of permission through the immigration system. We do, however, recognise there will be occasions when we will need to waive the bans and grant permission; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted, where not granting permission would contravene our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 29 balances our need to disincentivise people from making dangerous journeys to the UK by ensuring that there is no benefit to be gained from entering the UK illegally, while recognising there may be a limited number of scenarios in which it is appropriate to grant permission. I put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that this is a proportionate and balanced provision. Therefore, I do not recognise her description of the Bill as “wielding a sledgehammer”.
Clause 30 sets out that a person will not be eligible for British citizenship, British Overseas Territories citizenship, British overseas citizenship and British subject status if they enter the UK unlawfully and meet the criteria in Clause 2. The ban will also apply to someone who enters a Crown dependency or British Overseas Territory unlawfully in a similar way. We have included the other types of British nationality as we do not think it is right that illegal entry should allow a person to acquire any form of British nationality, but also to prevent a person using it as a stepping stone to register as a British citizen. Illegal entry into the UK, a Crown dependency or an overseas territory will have the same effect. We do not want people to be able to enter illegally in any of those locations and use that as a way to acquire citizenship and, ultimately, a right to enter and live in the UK.
Clauses 31 to 34 set out the routes to which the citizenship ban will apply. The key citizenship route which will be affected is naturalisation, as my noble friend Lord Moylan noted. This is the main way in which adults born outside the UK can acquire British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship. The ban will also apply to certain registration routes. However, those applying under provisions that address historical inequalities in British nationality law will not be affected. This includes people born before 1983 to British mothers, those who missed out on citizenship because their parents were not married or those applying on the route for descendants of Chagossians.
Clause 35 allows us to exempt a person from the citizenship ban if treating them as ineligible for citizenship would contravene our obligations under the human rights convention. This means that if a person can demonstrate that, for example, their right to a family or private life can be met only by us considering a grant of citizenship, we will not exclude them from applying. We do not think that acquiring citizenship will usually be essential to allow a person to have a private or family life in the UK; other options, such as leave to enter or remain, may satisfy that. However, in very exceptional cases where considering a grant of citizenship is needed to prevent us breaching our ECHR obligations, Clause 35 may apply. We will publish guidance for nationality caseworkers setting out how to assess human rights in the nationality context.
The amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan would remove registration routes for British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship from the ban so that it applies only to naturalisation. They would also remove the bans on becoming a British overseas citizen and British subject through registration. My noble friend Lord Moylan has described registration as an “evidence-based process”, with decisions not based on the Secretary of State exercising discretion. I am afraid to say that I disagree with my noble friend as this is not universally the case: some registration routes are dependent on ministerial discretion and there is no automatic entitlement.
Let me explain this further. As my noble friend Lord Moylan said, not all registration routes are included in the ban. Those that allow people to acquire British nationality they missed out on because of previous unfairness are not included; nor are the specific routes for children born in the UK or stateless persons. However, registration routes that rely on residence or specifically for children born outside the UK are included in the ban, as we expect people who want to become citizens to have followed a compliant pathway, including having entered lawfully.
For example, Section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 allows people who already hold another form of British nationality to register as a British citizen on the basis of five years’ lawful residence in the UK. The residence requirements mirror those for naturalisation: the only significant difference between the routes is that other British nationals wanting to register under that route do not need to meet the knowledge of English and life in the UK requirements. Given that the residence requirements are the same as for naturalisation, it would be appropriate for them to be subject to the ban in the same way as naturalisation applicants. This is the route that BNOs can use if they come to the UK under our scheme and become settled: they can go on to apply for citizenship. It is right that those who apply and come through legal routes should have the right to become citizens, but we do not think it is right that those who enter unlawfully should benefit.
The registration routes for children who are subject to the ban include two routes for children born abroad to British citizens by descent. Both have a residence element: either that the parent lived in the UK for a period of three years before the child was born or the family lived in the UK for the three-year period before applying to register the child. We do not anticipate that children of British citizens would be brought to the UK on a small boat when there are routes available to them as family members, but should that happen, the child will not be able to register as a citizen.
The other child route that is included in the ban is registration of children at the Home Secretary’s discretion. The only statutory requirements are that the child is under 18 and is of good character if over 10. However, guidance sets out expectations about when a child will be registered. The normal expectation is that the child will be settled in the UK, and that the parents will be British, or at least settled. It is unlikely that children who enter the UK unlawfully would be able to meet the normal expectations of having a British or settled parent, being lawfully present and having completed a period of residence, as under the Government’s proposals, children who have entered illegally will be removed. The citizenship ban will, however, prevent a child being registered under this provision unless there are ECHR grounds. This fits with the Government’s intention to discourage parents from bringing children to the UK via dangerous methods, including crossing the channel in a small boat, and that such a child cannot become a British citizen and create a means for the family to stay.
My noble friend raised, quite rightly, the issue of compassionate cases. As I have said the ECHR exemption will allow us to consider registering, in rare and exceptional cases, where a person meets the statutory requirements and granting citizenship would be essential to allow them to exercise their family or private life.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have two short questions. First, how can a child be culpable? The whole point of the Bill, as I understand it, is that people should not be encouraged to come by illegal means, they should not jump the queue, et cetera. We disagree about that, but none the less, in that conversation about culpability, how can a child be culpable? Secondly, why should the ECHR take on the slack of compassion? There are many members of the Minister’s Government who do not think we should even be signatories of the ECHR any more, and now the ECHR is being relied on for discretion and for slack and compassion. How can that sit well with this Government?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
On the first point, there is no suggestion that these measures impute culpability in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. On the second point, I would have thought that the noble Baroness would approve of the fact that the statute relies upon the convention rights as being the pressure valve for exceptional circumstances in the way that I have described.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
It may be that I have not quite understood what the noble Lord is saying, but the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I specifically asked the kind of question that was posed by the JCHR. Why have the Government narrowed the reference down from the original wording of the clause to the ECHR, when originally it was to any other international agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party? Why has that gone?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The answer, which I will turn to in a moment, is that it was considered that greater clarity and concision was needed. In that respect, it is the Government’s view that the test set out in Clause 35 meets that requirement. That was the reason for the change.
Turning now to Amendment 98ZA—
Lord Moylan (Con)
Before my noble friend turns to that amendment, I am of course not a lawyer but really quite a simple soul, who is struggling to catch up in some ways with the things he has explained to us. But it seems—forgive me if I have grasped this entirely wrongly—that we are now talking about two quite separate Bills. In one Bill, if your pestilential foot is set upon English soil the Home Secretary, as the Secretary of State, has a duty to remove you forthwith. That duty having been satisfied, the question might arise in your mind: are you in fact entitled to registration as a British national on the facts of your case? I fully accept that a degree of discretion is always involved in judging these facts, because they will rarely be compelling either way. You would be doing this, presumably, from your new home in Rwanda or whatever country it is to which you have been safely deported.
On the other hand, the Bill my noble friend is describing is one through which these people will, having landed illegally, already have acquired some sort of settlement here—the Home Secretary, presumably, having failed entirely in the duty that we are imposing on her to remove them. They will be exploiting the advantages of that settlement and clocking up hours on the clock, qualifying increasingly for British nationality, which my noble friend thinks—I rather agree with him—is a little unfair because you are getting ahead of the queue by getting in illegally. Then the clock is running and you would be accumulating all the benefits. Which Bill are we discussing here? The Bill I thought I was discussing was one through which the vast majority of the people who would be making a claim for registration of British nationality, with very few exceptions, would already have been subject to the duty to remove. How many does my noble friend think will not have been subject to it?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that contribution. The position, as he outlined in his speech, is that the deterrence effect takes its force from a number of sections in the Bill: the first, obviously, being the detention and removal, as he rightly identified; the second being the bans on the ability to settle or stay here, the idea being that that disincentivises people from entering illegally using dangerous routes. I do not accept that there are two Bills in the way that my noble friend identifies. The reality is that the question of registration of citizenship, which he raises, is unlikely to arise in as many cases as the naturalisation circumstance—I think we can agree on that—so it is natural that what we are talking about is probably an exceptional state of affairs, in any event. That is potentially why my noble friend perceives a dissonance between the deterrent effect and the two factors, but in fact there is no such distinction.
Amendments 98ZA and 98EA, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seek to expand the circumstances in which the bans on settlement and citizenship are to be disapplied. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also touched on this issue. We consider that the circumstances in which a grant of settlement or citizenship would be an appropriate remedy are wholly covered by the ECHR, so our view is that the addition of other international agreements is unnecessary, hence the amendment, as we have already canvassed.
I turn now to Amendment 98I tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. This seeks to provide a broader protection for those holding British national (overseas) status. We do not believe this is necessary. The clauses which prevent people from obtaining various forms of British nationality already do not mention British national (overseas) status. This is for the simple reason that no one has been able to obtain that status since 1997 and, consequently, there is no need to ban people from obtaining it should they arrive illegally.
We already have in place a dedicated migration route for people from Hong Kong and, as the noble Baroness knows, it has been a significant priority for the Government and the department to offer this route to British national (overseas) people from Hong Kong in response to the situation there. We have done a great deal for the citizens of Hong Kong and hope to continue to do so. As cited in my response to my noble friend, Lord Moylan, a route to citizenship exists under Section 4(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981. There should therefore be no reason for a person holding British national (overseas) status to arrive illegally in the manner which would mean they fall under this Bill’s provisions.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I was just going to posit to the noble Lord that some of these people having to flee are aged 16 and 17 and were involved in demonstrations and so on and then fled by unusual routes out of Hong Kong. Some of them are making their way via Europe to join family members here in the United Kingdom. Would they automatically, under this Bill, be deprived of ever joining their families?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that. In fact, I was just turning to that very issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked a couple of specific questions about the children of BNO passport holders—the issue that the noble Baroness now raises again. These address issues which fall outside this Bill; none the less, I can advise the noble Baroness and others interested in this topic that dependants of BNO status holders who themselves do not hold BNO status do not need a valid Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passport to renew their BNO visa. However, I am afraid that renewal of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region passports is not something the UK Government can assist with and until they qualify for British citizenship, such children are not eligible for a British passport.
The Government’s view is that this is not relevant to this clause, but I am, however, very interested in this topic and can entirely understand the concern that has been expressed. I would be content to meet the noble Baroness and perhaps the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and some BNOs to discuss this issue because it is obviously important. I suggest that this amendment is not the mechanism for us to discuss this, but I entirely understand that clarification and explanation is needed.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer. One of the reasons why I wanted to lay this probing amendment is that BNO paper-holders feel they are getting a clear message from Border Force and immigration officials that their children do not have that protected status. It is that hole that we are trying to get the answer to, and we have not had it yet. I am very grateful for the meeting, but they need to know because at the moment some of them are being told that their children have no rights and should have Chinese travel documents. If the Government’s officials are saying that, surely that is wrong.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, clearly this needs to be looked into and I hear what the noble Baroness says. After the conclusion of the Committee we can have that meeting, explore the issue and I can respond in full. I am certainly not unsympathetic to the points raised.
The benefits of permanent settlement and British citizenship should not be available to those who come to the UK illegally. These clauses serve to underline our core message that if you come to the UK unlawfully, you will not be able to build a life in this country. I commend Clauses 29 to 36 to the Committee and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, our debate on this group has given me a new respect for nationality law, which is at least as confusing as I ever imagined. It has always been a rather “Here be dragons” subject for me; that has been fully confirmed by this debate. I need to try to make sense of my scribbles.
One thing still puzzles me: I do not really understand why the Government are excluding registration for some forms of British citizenship but not for others. I remain bemused by that; I shall have to read exactly what the Minister said in Hansard. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, grasped that explanation better than I did.
I have sympathy with the particular issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on registration. I happen to think that there is more commonality with the issue of excluding routes to naturalisation than the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, wishes to acknowledge or give any quarter to, but on the issue of registration he made some important points. I wish him well in his pursuit of those issues with the Minister, but I also believe that there are serious issues around excluding people from the right to remain and a route to citizenship.
I did not grasp the Minister’s explanation of why the phrase “other international agreements” was taken out by the Government. Why did you—I do not mean the Minister personally; I mean the Government and the Home Secretary—put it in the original draft of the Bill a few months ago and then take it out if it did not meet the tests of clarity and concision? I think that was the Minister’s explanation. I accept that taking out those few words makes the clause more concise, but I do not think that doing so makes it clearer because we are then left wondering how the Government are going to secure compliance with those other international agreements —including the refugee convention, the statelessness conventions and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—which are not referred to in the Bill.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Minister tried to explain that hanging fast to the ECHR was some new discovery by the Government. As I said last week, we tend to find it quite confusing as to when the Government like the ECHR and when they do not. They appear to act rather fast and loose on this subject.
I applaud the probing amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton. I hope that she gets a fruitful meeting with the Minister because, as she and other noble Lords said, this issue seems to be the subject of considerable muddle and is having a severe impact on people’s lives. It is giving them extra anxiety. They have had to leave home and come to this country, but now they are being given the runaround by Home Office staff.
I was left unclear, it has to be said, on the situation raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. What will happen to the dependants of BNO status holders who are having to leave Hong Kong irregularly and perhaps also arrive in this country irregularly? I am not clear whether we are sure about how their welfare and status will be assured. The Minister said that BNOs are not covered by this Bill, but if somebody who is not a BNO but is a dependant of one arrives in this country irregularly, surely they will potentially be subject to the Clause 2 duty to remove.
Also—and almost finally—the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, highlighted a very interesting contrast between the Government wanting a duty to remove people but wanting only a discretion to be fair to them in legal and human rights terms. That does not seem very consistent. So I end by saying that I still feel very firmly that the duties under Clause 29 and 35 should be expressed in terms of not a discretion but a duty to obey our international legal obligations under the ECHR and other international treaties that we have signed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 5, line 38.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I warned your Lordships that I would keep popping up this evening, but I am glad to say that the cavalry is coming to my assistance. On the Bench opposite there are all my legal heavyweight friends who are going to row in on this issue. In moving that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill, I shall speak similarly with regard to Clauses 38 to 42 and in support of my Amendments 114 and 115 as well as all the other amendments in this group.
At the moment, under existing law, a human rights claim would effectively suspend a claimant’s removal; the suspensive effect of a human rights claim is a crucial safeguard against individuals being removed to face human rights abuses before the validity of their claim has been established. As was referred to in earlier groups, we on these Benches believe that pursuing a claim from another jurisdiction is likely to be very difficult and in some cases impossible. We were talking about trafficking victims earlier, but I contend that it applies to anyone trying to pursue a claim from abroad. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the right to an effective remedy under Article 13, taken together with Articles 2 and 3, guarantees the ability to present an asylum claim effectively. We would say that you cannot do it effectively if you are outside the country.
Clause 4 of the Bill makes it clear that the Clause 2 duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for removal will still apply to a person making a claim that removal would violate their human rights. The continuing application of the duty means that, under the Bill, these claims would all be non-suspensive. The Bill provides narrow exceptions to this non-suspensive effect by establishing two categories of suspensive claims that prevent the removal of the claimant while they are ongoing: the serious harms suspensive claim and the factual suspensive claim. These are the only ways in which anyone who satisfies the Clause 2 conditions—whether they are seeking asylum, have been trafficked or have otherwise come without permission—would be able to challenge their removal before it takes place. Even a successful claimant will remain subject to the Secretary of State’s removal duty and prohibition on getting leave to enter or remain under Clause 29, as we have just been discussing, and will thus remain in a state of limbo regarding their immigration status—at least theoretically still awaiting removal—so it does not necessarily solve the problem. Most human rights claims will stay non-suspensive and have to be pursued from outside.
I turn to the test for these suspensive claims, which I think is where some of the amendments come in. The test established in the Strasbourg court is where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question would face a real risk. However, this appears to mean that individuals who can establish a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3 but cannot establish that it is imminent would still be removed under this Bill and left to pursue their claims from overseas. The JCHR says, and we on these Benches agree, that this would likely breach the Government’s obligations under the ECHR—the convention to which the Government are newly converted.
Another problem is that a serious harm suspensive claim would have to contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met. This appears to be a new evidential standard created by this Bill. Freedom from Torture told the JCHR that this amounts to
“an extremely high evidential threshold which may, in fact, be higher than ‘real risk’ or even ‘the balance of probabilities’. How an individual who has just fled persecution could provide evidence to this threshold is unclear”.
The next problem is that the Bill retains a power for the Secretary of State to make provision about the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm” in regulations. Our Constitution Committee considers that
“the implications of this definition are so significant that it should be amended only by primary legislation unless any delegated power to do so is limited to prevent fundamental risks of harm being removed from the definition”.
The committee supports my proposition that Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill or heavily circumscribed.
This is also the subject of criticism by the JCHR. Not only does the committee
“urge the Government to reconsider its decision to make human rights claims non-suspensive, and the extremely high threshold imposed to establish serious harm suspensive claims”
but it believes:
“The meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ should not be open to amendment by regulations”
and:
“Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill”.
Lastly, timeframes are the subject of my Amendments 114 and 115. In the Bill, the Government are imposing very tight timescales: the lodging of a claim within seven days following receipt of the notice, a decision within three days and appeal to the Upper Tribunal within six days. My amendments aim to increase both the claim and the decision deadlines to 30 days. All in all, my amendments in this group, with the support of other noble Lords, are designed to restore better fairness to the possibility of people appealing against removal. I beg to move.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to a number of amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111 and 112, all of which are supported by my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who is a co-signatory. I am grateful to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who has also supported one of them. I am also grateful to the Minister for a remote meeting with me to discuss my amendments, which I appreciated.
We are here dealing with the situation where a person claiming refugee status has been given a third country removal notice. That notice will be for removal to a country specified in Schedule 1, and the refugee claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution if they are removed to that country. Under the Bill, the removal notice can be challenged only by a serious harm suspensive claim. The serious harm condition is defined in Clause 38(3): the person claiming refugee status must, within a specified period called “the relevant period”,
“face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed … to the country or territory specified in the third country removal notice”.
The majority of my amendments in this group focus on the inappropriateness of the requirement to show an imminent risk of “irreversible” harm within a specified period.
The first point to note is that, by way of general observation, whereas the serious harm suspensive claim focuses on the situation of an individual claiming refugee status, the well-established approach both internationally and under our own jurisprudence is to ask, in the case of a “particular social group” within Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention, whether the members of that group have a well-founded fear of persecution by virtue of being a member of that group.
Secondly, that change in approach is explained by the appearance, for the first time, of a requirement for an individual claiming refugee status to be able to resist removal to an otherwise unsafe country only if they can additionally show that they would personally suffer serious and irreversible harm. There is no such requirement in the refugee convention or in any jurisprudence of our own courts or, so far as I am aware, those of any other country.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I declare an interest as a former and retired Home Office lawyer and therefore there is a small pension that is being administered by some private company. The important point about that declaration is that when I was a Home Office lawyer in the 1990s, working on matters that included asylum, there was a moment when a particular failed asylum seeker who was removed was shot on arrival in their home country.
I make that point because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has made the detailed, forensic point so clearly, but as we move into this part of the Bill and start considering non-suspensive appeals, interim relief and what should happen to someone while there is a dispute about the safety of the place to which they are being sent, that is the story that hangs in my mind, and that is really the best contribution that I can make to the Committee’s thinking when we think about non-suspensive and suspensive appeals, and when we think in due course about my own group of amendments, which is about interim relief from domestic courts and international courts.
To facilitate the swift progress of the Committee I will do something that seems counterintuitive. The Government Chief Whip, who is returning to her place, gave us some very good advice about the Committee not liking reading. Which day was that on exactly? Was it Wednesday or Thursday? Was it this year or last year? I understand that point but this is not a filibuster; this is a very short, pithy quote from the JCHR report, which makes the point better than I could about what is wrong with the particular provisions dealt with in this group.
Noble Lords will find the quote on page 105 of the blockbuster JCHR report, which we will not all be able to read in its totality. Paragraph 333 says:
“Making human rights claims ‘non-suspensive’”—
non-suspensive means that you can appeal from the place you say are not safe in; it is perhaps not the place you say you will be shot but the place you might be sent to where you will be shot or otherwise persecuted—
“can only be consistent with our human rights obligations if pursuing those claims from the destination state is viable”.
This is from the JCHR, which is an all-party committee of both Houses. It continues:
“We are concerned that this has not been established for the states deemed safe for removals”.
That was one of the many excellent points made by the noble and learned Lord. It goes on:
“The threshold required to establish a suspensive claim based on serious harm under the Bill, and the requirement for ‘compelling evidence’ to support it”—
for those desperate refugees—
“puts at risk of removal those who have genuine human rights reasons why they should not be removed. Furthermore, allowing the Secretary of State to redefine ‘serious and irreversible harm’ by regulations opens up the possibility of increasing disparity between the protections against refoulement in domestic law and those to which the UK is committed in international law, including”—
the Minister’s favourite—
“the ECHR. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision to make human rights claims non-suspensive, and the extremely high threshold imposed to establish serious harm suspensive claims. The meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ should not be open to amendment by regulations. Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill”.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 101, 110 and 113. Two of these amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has added his name, are about the meaning of words. They are words to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, drew attention in her opening remarks on this group.
Amendment 101 directs attention to the definition in Clause 38(3) of the serious harm condition. The Bill says that this requirement will be satisfied if the person faces a
“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed from the United Kingdom … to the country … specified in the third country removal notice”.
Amendment 113 directs attention to the requirement in Clause 41(5) that a serious harm suspensive claim must
“contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met in relation to the person”
making the claim. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for drawing our attention to the reference in the JCHR report to the word “compelling” and its consequences.
So far as
“real, imminent and foreseeable risk”
is concerned, we suggest that that phraseology is unnecessarily complex. If a risk is imminent and foreseeable then one would say it must be a real risk and not a hypothetical one. Conversely, if the risk is real then it would follow that that is because it is imminent and foreseeable. These words are unnecessarily complex. It would be better, we suggest, to delete the words “imminent and foreseeable” or, alternatively, delete the word “real”. The real question is whether the word “real” adds anything if the other two words are satisfied.
As for the word “compelling”, there is an important question in addition to the fundamental point raised in the JCHR report as to what exactly “compelling”, in Clause 41(5), is dealing with. Clause 41(5) is telling the asylum seeker what his or her claim must contain. There are various requirements set out, and the first is that it
“must … contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met”.
The first question is who is to judge that the evidence in that claim is compelling? The clause begins by telling us that the Secretary of State must consider the claim, before the end of the decision period, and make one of the following decisions:
“that the serious harm condition is met … or … that the serious harm condition is not met”.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group. In so doing, I refer your Lordships to my entries in the register of interests, particularly as patron of the AIDS and HIV charity, the Terrence Higgins Trust.
I particularly support the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who brilliantly explained the reasoning behind them. As he says in his explanatory statement to Amendment 105, the current wording of Clause 38(5)(c) is too wide and would preclude
“a human rights claim pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”,
which the Government are suddenly clinging on to. It would also preclude a protection claim pursuant to the refugee convention. I am not a lawyer, so I will not dwell too much on those matters; however, I support the argument that what is proposed in this clause is not in conformity with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.
At the heart of this provision is the removal to the so-called safe countries in Schedule 1. As your Lordships will know, I am not alone in my concerns; they were discussed with great concern on the first and third days in Committee and today. Indeed, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, tried to reassure me and others that the list was really an amalgam and that the countries, where people who might be subject to discrimination because they belong to a particular social group will be going, might perhaps say, “We don’t want them”. That is a wonderful hypothetical answer, but my reply is: what if a person who is HIV positive is sent to a country, such as Uganda, where that person, if they are lesbian, gay or bisexual, would have to say to their medical practitioner that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual? That medical practitioner, if they did not reveal that information to the Government, would face two years’ imprisonment, while the person receiving treatment themselves could be criminalised. That is just one country from a huge range of countries, not only around the world but particularly within the Commonwealth. Some 80% of the countries of the Commonwealth currently criminalise people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
Because of the lateness, I will now take my place. But for the reason I have just cited, and many more, I heartily and unreservedly support these amendments, particularly those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of both my noble and learned friends, who sit to my right in the Chamber. I am particularly grateful, as I think the whole Committee is, to my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton for the very clear exposition he gave of the law and of the consequences of these provisions which change the law.
I will put my very short analysis of this into “faults” and “conclusions”. Clause 38 is word soup, full of tautology and contradictions—the sort of thing that makes fortunes for lawyers if they can get in front of judges, like my noble and learned friends in the very senior courts, and make esoteric arguments based on an analysis of the text. The word soup is most certainly not a consommé clarified by the use of egg whites, so that you can see through it to the bottom of the bowl. It is more like a sort of mad minestrone, into which the draftsman has thrown every word vegetable that he or she could find.
Let us look at Clause 38(3), where the “serious harm condition” is in inverted commas. I was taught at school never to use inverted commas, if you could avoid it, because they show a weakness in your argument, unless it is a quotation that someone said. It says:
“The ‘serious harm condition’ is that P would, before the end of the relevant period, face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk”.
Supposing we missed out the words “real, imminent and”, what difference would it make if it simply read,
“before the end of the relevant period, face a … foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”?
If one missed out the words “and irreversible”, would it mean less if it read:
“The ‘serious harm condition’ is that P would, before the end of the relevant period, face a … foreseeable risk of serious … harm if removed from the United Kingdom”?
What are they trying to gain by the word soup—the possibility of making bizarre submissions in front of the senior courts in which my noble and learned friends sat?
After those comments, if you were asked, “What does all this mean?” by a lay man who might be up at 10.10 pm looking at parliamentary TV or parliamentlive.tv and fascinated by every word in this debate, you would say to him, “Just go and have a look at Clause 38(5)(c)”, which refers to
“where the standard of healthcare available to P in the relevant country or territory is lower than is available to P in the United Kingdom”.
They—or at least those who were well informed enough to be sitting up at 10.10 pm, watching parliamentary TV—would immediately say, “This is deliberate discrimination against gay men”. What else is this for?
We should be ashamed of ourselves if, at least when it comes to Report, we allow this kind of provision to remain in the Bill and do not help my noble and learned friends to pass their amendments. But I hope that we do not have to reach that stage, because this word soup should seem as ridiculous to our noble friends the Ministers as it does to some of us.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting, if not bewildering, debate—at least to us non-lawyers. My lay interpretation of the provisions we debated in this group is that they highlight the danger of asylum seekers being removed to countries where they could come to harm by making the level of proof required to suspend removal so high, and by making the evidence required to prevent their removal so compelling—within impossibly short timescales—as to make the likelihood of a successful claim diminishingly small. If it turns out that it is not diminishingly small enough, the provisions allow the Secretary of State to redefine what “serious and irreversible harm” means to make sure that the tap is turned off almost completely.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, questioned whether such an approach is compatible with existing law. It is quite clear what the Government are trying to do here: make it impossible for anyone to resist removal from this country under the provisions of the Bill. That is why we do not believe that Clauses 37 to 42 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this was an interesting debate. I thought I was with lawyers, but then, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I realised that I was also struggling to be a chef.
The serious point was well summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and it was interesting—it answers the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about people who may be watching parliamentary TV, and certainly members of the public who read our deliberations. The legal dissection of the clause done by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others is of immense benefit. But the real point for members of the public reading our proceedings will be what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said: there can be no other interpretation of how these clauses are laid out and, essentially, the Government are trying to make it as hard as possible for an individual to stop their removal from the country when they are subject to the provisions in Clause 2. There can be no other interpretation—this is designed to make it almost impossible. The key question for the Minister is: why is that wrong? Why is it not the case that the Government are seeking to make it as difficult as possible for people to leave?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 37 provides for two types of suspensive claims, which have the effect of suspending a person’s removal—a factual suspensive claim and a serious harm suspensive claim. A factual suspensive claim is a claim that a mistake was made in deciding that a person meets the four conditions set out in Clause 2. A serious harm suspensive claim is a claim that a person would, before the end of the relevant period, face a risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the UK to a country other than their country of origin. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, noted, the risk must be real, imminent and foreseeable. The serious and irreversible harm test is designed to be a high threshold, reflecting the test of the European Court of Human Rights when considering whether to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39.
These amendments seek to change how Clause 38 defines the risk of harm, lowering the threshold for a serious harm claim to succeed. In responding to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I start by making the general observation that suspensive claims are relevant to people who have received a third-country removal notice. In this context, an asylum claim would not be relevant. Therefore, they do not impact the definition of “refugee” in the way that he suggested.
Amendments 100 and 108 would remove the requirement for the harm to occur in the period that it would take for any human rights claim or judicial review to be determined from the third country. If accepted, these amendments would enable people who receive a third-country removal notice to raise serious harm suspensive claims against their removal, based on a risk of harm that many not materialise for many months, if not years, after the person’s removal to the safe third country. This cannot be right. We cannot have a position whereby a person’s removal from this country is prevented based on a risk that does not currently exist and may not exist until a significant amount of time has elapsed after the person is removed.
Amendment 101 would remove the need for the risk of harm to be imminent and foreseeable. If accepted, this would have a similar effect to Amendments 100 and 108, enabling a person to successfully challenge their removal based on a risk that may occur a long time in the future.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
A great deal of research has gone into the risks associated with countries where the law still criminalises homosexuality. The research of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has shown that those countries permit levels of murder of gay men and women, violence towards them and discrimination against them in many different forms. The violence experienced by people who are part of the LGBT+ community in those countries is exponentially greater than anywhere else, even in countries known for high levels of violence. The idea the Minister is talking about—risk that is far down the line and many years ahead—is not what we are talking about here. For many people going to those countries, there will be risks almost immediately.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an entirely fair point. In those cases, of course, it would be an imminent feature. As she points out, in those circumstances that is something the courts would be able to have regard to.
The inclusion of “imminent and foreseeable” is intended to prevent the courts from considering risks that are dependent on a series of hypothetical events before the harm might occur. That is the reason, as I understand it, that “imminent” features in the European Court of Human Rights practice direction on interim measures. We cannot allow illegal entrants to be able to thwart their removal based on an unknown risk that cannot be foreseen and may not even arise for many months or years, if at all.
Amendments 102, 103, 104, 109, 111 and 112 would remove the requirement for the risk of harm to be irreversible. These amendments would significantly lower the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim to succeed and undermine the purpose of the Bill to deter illegal entry to the UK. Again, I point out with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that
“a real risk of serious and irreversible harm”
is the test applied by the Strasbourg court when considering applications for Rule 39 interim measures, as he alluded to during his speech.
Amendments 105, 106 and 107 would remove specific examples of harm, relevant to the availability of healthcare and medical treatment in a third country—a passage that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, drew the attention of the Committee to—in circumstances that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm. There is existing case law that indicates that claims based on harm resulting from differing standards of healthcare fall short of the Article 3 threshold. It is simply unjustifiable for those who enter this country illegally to be able to remain here indefinitely and have unlimited access to our healthcare systems solely on the basis that they may not receive the same level of medical treatment in the country or territory they are rightly removed to.
For these reasons, Clause 38 makes it clear that a serious harm suspensive claim based on a risk of harm relating to differing standards of healthcare cannot succeed and, as a result, will not prevent that person’s removal to the safe third country. Clause 38 also makes it clear that a claim based on pain or distress resulting from a lack of medical treatment is unlikely to succeed. By including specific examples of harm that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm in Clause 38, it is ensured that the courts take a consistent approach in their consideration of the risk of serious and irreversible harm and go no further than intended.
The Bill provides a fast-track process for the consideration of a claim which may temporarily suspend a person’s removal from the UK. Clauses 41 and 42, as the Committee has noted, set out the procedure and timescale for making a suspensive claim and the timescale for a decision to be made on a suspensive claim.
Amendment 113 would remove the requirement for a serious harm suspensive claim to include compelling evidence of the risk of serious harm that a person would face if removed to a third country, as noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Reducing the evidential burden in this way risks the process being abused through spurious and unmeritorious claims, similar to those that we have seen in other immigration applications. Evidence that is compelling is defined as that which is reliable, substantial and material to a person’s claim. I suggest that this is a reasonable requirement and necessary to ensure that the suspensive claims process is not open to abuse.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out an explanation of the word “compelling”. He used three adjectives and my impression is that that explanation is intelligible; it is not quite as alarming as “compelling”. Would it not be better to substitute the three words that he quoted for “compelling”? “Compelling” could be read as setting a very high standard indeed, which I do not think the three adjectives that he mentioned do.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful for that suggestion from the noble and learned Lord. If I may, I will take a moment to reflect on that and will revert to him in relation to it.
Amendments 114 and 115 would significantly increase the timescales for making and deciding a serious harm suspensive claim, undermining the fast-track process that we have created in the Bill and our ability swiftly to remove illegal entrants. Where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, it will be possible to extend both the claim period and the decision period. Legal aid will be available to assist a person in receipt of a removal notice in making a suspensive claim. With these safeguards, I suggest to the Committee that it is reasonable to expect a person to bring a suspensive claim within the time periods set out in the Bill. I hope that that addresses the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that illegal entrants are removed as quickly as possible. Extending the decision and claim periods to a total of 60 days for all cases increases the risk that immigration bail would be granted by the First-tier Tribunal and, where bail is granted, that a person would disappear into the community in order to frustrate their removal. The use of detention is therefore necessary to make sure that they are successfully removed from the UK, and our ability to detain a person is dependent on any suspensive claim being both considered and decided quickly. The timeframes outlined in the Bill send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the regulation-making power in Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill. We are considering that committee’s recommendations and will respond before Report stage. I would, however, comment that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on this power.
The amendments put forward would undermine the suspensive claims procedure and the timeframes outlined in the Bill, where what this Government need to do is send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Etherton (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, there were two specific questions that I raised at the end of what I said that I would like an answer to. I do not believe that he has answered them at the moment.
The first is confirmation that there is nothing in the Bill that in any way derogates from the decision of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) that a person qualifies as a refugee under our jurisprudence if they would face persecution living openly as an LGBT person. This is relevant to the question of serious irreversible harm, the question being whether it is the Government’s view that you would have to, if necessary, act discreetly and that, if you acted discreetly, the harm would not be suffered. Is it intended, through the Bill, to undermine this landmark decision of the Supreme Court?
The second point on which I would like a specific answer was similarly in relation to the UNHCR’s latest advice—from 2023, I think—about what constitutes an appropriate flight alternative. Where would it be appropriate to deny refugee status because there is a place within a territory or country where there would be no persecution and where it would be reasonable for the person in question to live in an ordinary way?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating those questions. He is entirely right that I should have answered them; I apologise for not doing so.
The short answer is that this is a separate strategy regime to the one that the case of HJ (Iran) was decided under. Of course, although the findings in that case and the line of cases concluding in that case would be relevant, the decision will always be taken on the facts of each case. I cannot, I am afraid, give the noble and learned Lord an undertaking on what he might perceive to be an inconsistent decision in relation to that case. I am happy to look into it further and will write to him about that, but that would certainly be my instinctive reaction.
In relation to the further report from the UNHCR, again, each of these matters is fact-sensitive to each serious harm suspensive claim. It would not be right for me to try to predicate at this Dispatch Box what the outcome might be.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am sorry to come back on this, but it is important. The Government must give some guidance to the judges of the Upper Tribunal who try these cases with these novel and, if I may say so—I am adopting the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—complicated provisions. These are new provisions that are not found anywhere else in our jurisprudence or in anybody else’s. We are talking about a special type of irreversible harm that has to be predictable. Any guidance that we can give on how the existing jurisprudence and UNHCR advice would still apply will be extremely important for the actual mechanics of delivering justice in these cases.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I can only repeat that the Supreme Court decision in HJ (Iran) and the other documents provided by the UNHCR are not relevant in this context because they do not deal with the same mechanics. Those cases were asylum or protection claims, whereas this deals with the specific statutory category of serious and irreversible harm. Of course, although there may be some crossover in the arguments deployed, ultimately they address a different issue. I cannot provide the type of assurance that the noble and learned Lord seeks, I am afraid.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, if two noble and learned Lords and one learned with a small “l” noble Lord—if I may call the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that—are frowning and struggling to understand what the Minister has just said, there is no hope for me. I must confess that I found it pretty difficult to understand. I would be most grateful if the Minister could put the letter that he has promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in the Library so that the rest of us can try to understand.
It would be of great concern if the worry that the noble and learned Lord raised was to be shrouded in doubt in terms of the status of the Supreme Court case, which said that you cannot expect a gay person to have to live in a closeted fashion—that is, you would expect them to be able to live openly for a country to be considered safe. If that precedent were to be put in any doubt, it would have serious implications, as would the concerns that were raised about healthcare; I am not sure what point we have precisely got to on that subject.
The overall concern, if I may put it like this, is if it ain’t broke there is no need to fix it. The courts seem to have got a handle on these issues, and what the Government are doing with their word salad is creating quite a lot of instability and confusion in something that is being handled pretty competently by the courts. They have reached some position on how to assess issues such as risk, foreseeability and reality of risk—and here the Government come, like a bull in a china shop, trying to upset and disturb all that. I am rather minded to think that the Government would do better just to leave it to the courts.
The Minister was not very persuasive in his argument that the wording in the Bill is necessary to stop projections of hypothetical risk. Surely, the courts can be relied on to filter out fantastical imaginings when they assess the reality of risk. I am afraid I found his responses on this group pretty unpersuasive. He keeps coming back to this hoary old chestnut that the use of detention is necessary to ensure swift removal. The idea that this Government are going to ensure swift removal of a lot of people strikes most people living in the real world, to use that phrase again, as for the birds. However, with that said, I shall not oppose the clause standing part.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Yes, I am sorry, it is me again. I am looking forward to the next group, when someone else will be in charge.
I shall speak to the question of whether various clauses should not stand part of the Bill. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on Clauses 49 and 51, the ouster clauses. The situation at the moment is that, generally, immigration and asylum decisions can be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal with a further appeal to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law, but under the Bill, the rejection of a suspensive claim may be appealed only to the Upper Tribunal, bypassing the First-tier Tribunal. The fear is that while reducing appeal rights may speed up the process, it could be at a significant cost to justice. As with the suspensive claims themselves, the Bill requires the notice of appeal to be supported by compelling evidence, and this could result in a notice of appeal being rejected despite there being evidence that, while not coming under the definition of “compelling”, is nevertheless sufficient to establish the normal tests that the Upper Tribunal would apply.
Also, if the Secretary of State certifies that the claim is clearly unfounded, there needs to be permission from the Upper Tribunal to appeal to the Upper Tribunal and this will be granted only if the Upper Tribunal considers that there is compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met, with the additional requirement that serious harm is “obvious”. This could result in the Upper Tribunal refusing permission despite being satisfied that the serious harm condition is met. It could have to refuse it on the grounds that it is not obvious serious harm, which could expose the claimant to a risk of irreversible harm in breach of the convention.
We come to the denial of the right to judicially review the decisions of the Upper Tribunal. Justice said in its evidence to the JCHR that since vulnerable individuals will be
“restricted to one, fast-tracked hearing, it is even more important that there is proper oversight from experienced judges”.
The Bill therefore denies the right to judicial review even where an error has been made in reaching the decision. It insulates decisions of the Upper Tribunal from any kind of judicial oversight or correction by the higher courts. This is a cause of considerable worry. The risk to those removed despite having a human rights claim pending is extremely serious. If appeal rights in suspensive claims are limited, there should at least be effective judicial supervision and the Bill should be amended to remove the unnecessary ouster of judicial review.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford has clearly explained why Clauses 43 to 51 should not stand part of the Bill. The Government just seem to dismiss all the safeguards around access to justice and making sure that the court process has integrity, to speed up any sort of appeal process against decisions under this Bill, to the extent that they are destroying the whole principle of justice. That is why we do not believe these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for explaining this really quite complex area. The only thing I was going to ask the Minister was whether he could explain the timeframes within which the appeal must be lodged: seven days for the Upper Tribunal and then 23 days for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session. Are those timeframes standard in these types of cases? How have they arrived at them?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, expressed the case very fully and I thought the way the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, summarised it was a fair comment about the accessibility of these processes to people taking part in them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, Clauses 43 to 51 are an essential part of the scheme of the Bill, just like Clause 54 on legal aid, which we discussed earlier. I think by now your Lordships are very familiar with the scheme of the Bill but, just briefly, for the record, I will try to outline these clauses and answer the questions that have arisen as we go through.
The first thing the Bill does is to render certain claims —protection of human rights and modern slavery claims—non-suspensive so that making them does not delay the removal of an illegal migrant to a safe third country. However, the Bill then provides safeguards for removal in two cases: where there is a serious harm suspensive claim and where there is a factual suspensive claim—there has been a mistake as to whether the conditions are met.
Then the Bill goes on to provide that if the Secretary of State refuses those claims there is then an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In general, the Government’s position is that that provides proper safeguards. It does not dismiss safeguards—if I may use the phrase just used by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—it strikes a fair balance between expedition and fairness to the migrant. It does not in any way destroy justice because the ultimate decision in relation to the suspensive claims is in the hands of a very respected and senior judicial body and legal aid is available in order to bring those claims.
The basic timetable, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that there are seven working days from receipt of the notice of removal to bring the claim, subject to the possibility of an extension if that is necessary to secure justice in a particular case. The 23-day period—I think I am right although I will correct myself in writing if I am wrong—is for the Upper Tribunal to take its decision. Those time limits for appeals are specific to this Bill. This is an expedited procedure that provides strict time limits, but in the Government’s view they are fair time limits.
One should make it clear that we have two situations. The first is where the Secretary of State certifies that the claim is clearly unfounded. In that circumstance, the person concerned has to apply for permission to appeal. That is the current approach, as I and the Government understand it, in the asylum and human rights system. It is effectively to weed out unmeritorious appeals as those designed to do no more than frustrate removal. Those cases are decided by the tribunal on the papers. Similarly, if you make a late suspensive claim—a claim out of time—it will be considered only if there are compelling reasons. That is at the level of the Secretary of State but if they consider that there are no compelling reasons, you can go to the tribunal and say, “There are compelling reasons why I was out of time”. Again, that is for the tribunal to decide on the papers.
These provisions are designed to ensure that claims are made at the earliest opportunity and prevent late claims being used to frustrate removal, undermining the overall effectiveness of the claims process. Once a claim has been made to the Secretary of State but not refused, and then to the Upper Tribunal as well, the whole process is suspended until the tribunal has taken a decision, so there is protection during that period.
Clause 47 also deals with another problem that constantly arises in this kind of case, where somebody tries to raise something new at a late stage. Again, there is a procedure for dealing with that: effectively, that the new matter can be considered by the Upper Tribunal only if there have been compelling reasons for it not to have been raised earlier. In relation to late claims, claims out of time and new matters, there are those checks to prevent the system being abused.
Clause 48 then requires the various timeframes to be respected. It places a requirement on the tribunal procedure rules to secure that those timeframes are respected. As I have just said, there are seven working days for the submission of a substantive appeal—I think that is in Clause 48(1)(a)—and a 23 working-day period for the tribunal to decide that substantive appeal. Those timeframes may, as I say, be extended. What we have here is a process that, in the Government’s view, is essentially a fast-track process but none the less a fair and balanced one.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
These very short timescales are no doubt part of the deterrent effect which the Government are seeking to put in place through the Bill. What estimate have the Government made about the workload on the tribunal process? Is it really sustainable to have such short timescales?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been working closely with the senior judiciary to ensure that we have the relevant judicial manpower and resources to deal with the workload. I am not, as of this moment, in a position to give specific details but one of the reasons for allowing the judges of the First-tier Tribunal to sit in the Upper Tribunal, which gives us a pretty wide pool to draw upon, is that it enables us to draw upon recorders, retired judges and others. The Government are at the moment satisfied from the discussions they have had that there will be sufficient judicial capacity to meet any reasonably foreseeable workload, but that is a perfectly good question and I thank the noble Lord for raising it.
I will come in a moment to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about judges in general, but I will first deal with government Amendment 115A, which provides for the first set of tribunal rules effectively to be made by the Lord Chancellor rather than, as would normally be the case, by the Tribunal Procedure Committee. That committee normally takes quite a long time to make new rules—maybe 12 months or more—so, since we are working to implement the Bill as soon as practicable, government Amendment 115A provides for the first set of tribunal procedure rules, including these time limits, to be made by the Lord Chancellor so that we have the relevant tribunal procedure rules in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for his responses. I am not really persuaded by his answer on Clause 49: that these are just some little minor issues that cannot be JRed from the Upper Tribunal. Subsection (3) states that
“the Upper Tribunal is not to be regarded as having exceeded its powers by reason of any error made in reaching the decision”.
So the fact that it has made an error is apparently not subject to judicial review, which seems to me not particularly minor. An application for judicial review can be made if the tribunal
“has acted … in bad faith or … in such a procedurally defective way as amounts to a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice”.
I do not suppose those crop up very often, and I would imagine that bad faith would be very difficult, if not impossible, to establish, so I do not think there is much wiggle room in Clause 49—but those who know more about how these things work might have other thoughts, and if they do I would be grateful if they would share them with me in due course.
I do not think the Minister covered the point about First-tier Tribunal judges being appointed to act as Upper Tribunal judges. If he did not—I will check what he said—perhaps he could write to me with any answers.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will happily write to the noble Baroness. I thought I had covered it when I said that it was creating a pool. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, nods. It is creating a pool of judges so we have enough judges of relevant standing and experience to decide what are essentially factual questions. These are relatively limited factual questions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise. I was clearly inattentive as I was trying to look at the other groups that are coming up. Even so, I think concerns remain about promoting, and possibly overpromoting, people before they are ready. What the Government are proposing to do seems a little odd.
On the tribunal rules, I note the Minister’s citation of a precedent, but at one point he said that the problem is that the committee works too slowly. I would have thought that if processes do not work very well or do not work in a reasonable timeframe, the way to resolve that is to work with the relevant bodies to speed them up rather than to grab power from them. However, I find that this Government seem to have an appetite for grabbing powers from everybody else, whether it is the courts, other agencies or indeed Parliament. I worry that the Government are getting rather too big for their boots. Perhaps one day they will even come a cropper. That said, I think I have probably taken these issues as far as they can go.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“Procedure for Tribunal Procedure Rules(1) The first time after the passing of this Act that Tribunal Procedure Rules are made for the purposes of any of sections 43 to 48 (appeals in relation to suspensive claims), the Rules may be made by the Lord Chancellor rather than by the Tribunal Procedure Committee.(2) Before making Tribunal Procedure Rules by virtue of subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor must consult—(a) the Senior President of Tribunals,(b) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales,(c) the Lord President of the Court of Session, and(d) the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.(3) The Lord Chancellor is not required to undertake any other consultation before making Tribunal Procedure Rules by virtue of subsection (1).(4) A requirement to consult under subsection (2) may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.(5) Tribunal Procedure Rules made by virtue of subsection (1) are to be made by statutory instrument.(6) A statutory instrument containing Tribunal Procedure Rules made by virtue of subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament after being made.(7) Tribunal Procedure Rules contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (6) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(8) In calculating the period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which— (a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(9) If Tribunal Procedure Rules cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7)—(a) that does not affect the validity of anything previously done under the Rules, and(b) subsection (1) applies again as if the Rules had not been made.(10) In this section “Tribunal Procedure Committee” means the committee of that name constituted under Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the first Tribunal Procedure Rules made after the passing of the Bill for the purposes of any of Clauses 43 to 48 to be made by the Lord Chancellor and to be subject to the made affirmative procedure.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(b) in subsection (9), at the beginning, insert “Subject to subsection (10),”;(c) after subsection (9), insert—“(10) A statutory instrument containing the first rules made for the purposes of section 2AA (appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023) must be laid before Parliament after being made.(11) Rules contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (10) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(12) In calculating the period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(13) If rules cease to have effect as a result of subsection (11)—(a) that does not affect the validity of anything previously done under the rules, and(b) subsection (10) applies again as if the rules had not been made.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the first rules made by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under section 5 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 for the purposes of section 2AA of that Act (inserted by Clause 51(5)) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 54, line 1 and page 54, line 7 modify Clause 52 so that a tribunal (as well as a court) may not grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom under the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this may be the graveyard shift, but I will do my best to keep the Committee awake for a little longer. I give huge thanks to all members of the Committee for being here for whatever reason—under pain of whipping, out of love for human rights or whatever it is. I thank you for being here.
The whole Bill is a clash between politics—I would say rather tawdry, populist politics, but politics none the less —and human rights. But this group—Amendments 116 to 119 and the issue of whether Clauses 52 and 53 should stand part of the Bill—is not even about human rights. It is about something that precedes both human rights and democracy itself: the rule of law. In our country, the rule of law came before we had even democracy. I would argue that no civilised society, let alone a democracy, can be sustained anywhere in the world without the rule of law.
Clauses 52 and 53 are, in effect, about ousting the jurisdiction of domestic and international courts to grant interim relief—interim injunctions in our domestic courts and interim measures in the European Court of Human Rights. They deal with some of the concerns that have been raised in previous groups about what you do when you have not actually considered the person’s substantive claim yet. They say, “You send me to Rwanda, Uganda et cetera. I will not be safe there. Bad things might happen to me there and/or I might be sent on to the country from which I originally came, where I feel I would be killed or tortured”. This is about interim relief: whether the courts should be allowed to grant it and whether our Government should respect that. All other parties to litigation have to respect the decisions of courts in relation to interim relief when there is an arguable case and a real risk.
If noble members of the Committee will forgive me, I will take the clauses backwards to make my point better. I will start with Clause 53, work backwards to Clause 52 and come to the amendments last.
Clause 53 deals with the European Court of Human Rights, and I am delighted to see the Foreign Office Minister in the Chamber to hear this. I am very grateful for that, because this is a matter of foreign policy and our relationships with the Council of Europe and the wider world, as well as a domestic legal matter.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I can be relatively brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for introducing her amendments so powerfully and with such knowledge. I agree with her that there is a curious disparity between Clauses 52 and 53, and my proposition is that they should be swept away and should not stand part of the Bill. As she said, the Home Office getting its act together and making decent decisions in the first place would be how to reduce the workload and what the Government seem to think is the overreach of the courts—I do not agree that it is overreach. If you get things right first time, you would not need to keep attacking the courts.
Clause 52 is a straightforward ban on domestic courts granting interim remedies to stop the removal of a person from the UK. We are familiar with this “courts are enemies of the people” stuff. The interim remedies are valuable because they allow the courts to maintain the status quo while a claim is considered. When the harm in question is a violation of human rights, the ability to freeze the situation is valuable. Denying the courts the ability to use interim remedies when justice demands it undermines the guarantees of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. Clause 52 should be removed, and I am glad to say that the JCHR agrees.
Clause 53 is a different animal altogether. It is really rather peculiar, and it takes a strange and circuitous route to block interim measures from Strasbourg, by giving a Minister discretion to decide whether or not to disapply the duty on the Home Secretary to remove the person. Given the negotiations under way over the procedure for deciding interim measures, as reported in the press and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this clause appears to be more politics than law. It is strange, given that the Prime Minister was recently in Reykjavik, at the summit of the Council of Europe—and given that the JCHR’s recent report says:
“We welcome the Prime Minister’s recent reaffirmation of his ‘deep and abiding’ commitment to the ECHR”
and the European Court of Human Rights, made at that very recent summit.
Then, the Government propose in Clause 53 to give Ministers permission to act in direct violation of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Talk about right hand and left hand: it is not only incoherent but provocative. That does not seem wise, if the aim is open and good-faith negotiation on possible procedural reform. It is very reminiscent of the way the Government went about dealing—or rather, not dealing—with Brussels over the Brexit negotiations: always aiming to antagonise, then turning around and saying that they are punishing us.
Clause 53 is irresponsible and it is not going to progress any negotiations, in so far as they are necessary, and given the small number of interim measures issued by the Strasbourg court, it seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not only is Clause 53 likely to hinder discussions on procedural reform, if that is necessary; it makes broader conflict with the European Court of Human Rights all but inevitable. If there is dissatisfaction with the procedures in Strasbourg, the solution is to pursue reform at the European level—and there have been many instances of discussions in the Council of Europe about the processes of the convention and the court. It is not even saying, “We will never obey interim measures”; it gives the Minister the discretion to refuse to comply with our obligations by obeying interim measures. Surely, the UK’s interests are better served by remaining, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, a “serious player” on the world stage, rather than undermining its own influence in this way. I therefore believe that Clauses 52 and 53 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I want to make a brief contribution on Clause 53. We cannot ask the Minister to comment on the impact assessment, because it is yet to be born, but we have the advantage of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. At paragraph 12, on page 121 of that report, in its recommendations and conclusions, it says that
“clause 53 gives Ministers legislative permission to act in direct violation of the UK obligations under the ECHR. Where a Minister chooses to ignore an interim measure and therefore breach Article 34 of the ECHR, clause 53 also prevents the courts from having regard to interim measures when considering proceedings under this Bill. This clause therefore permits deliberate breaches of our obligation to comply with interim measures of the ECtHR. Clause 53 must be removed from the Bill”.
That is the conclusion of an all-party Joint Committee of both Houses of this Parliament, and I trust that, in his response to the debate, the Minister will respond and give us his reasons for not accepting that carefully considered conclusion of the committee in one of the largest reports it has ever produced—and in the time when they could have produced 20 impact assessments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 119 and to the overall challenge to Clause 53. To be absolutely clear, there is no reason why the Government should not ignore and override an interim measure by the Strasbourg court. The requirement that Amendment 119 seeks to impose is also neither necessary nor appropriate. I regret to say that I disagree with the conclusion of the Joint Committee: what is proposed does not breach Article 34 of the convention.
Neither is Clause 53 a circuitous route to block interim measures. It permits Ministers to disapply the duty to remove a person to whom interim measures under Rule 39 have been asserted by the European court. Equally, the Minister will retain the power to ignore the interim measure if he or she so wishes. There are a number of reasons for this. First, as has been explained by my noble friend Lord Wolfson on previous occasions—I think he will add more later this evening—our treaty obligations have force in our domestic law only when Parliament enacts legislation to this effect, hence the Human Rights Act direct effect. Secondly, and of importance to others in this House who, like me, value this country’s good name and reputation, the interpretation which is now used to found this interim measure was placed only in 2005 on Rule 39 by the Strasbourg court. That decision was contrary to previous decisions of that court: in other words, it did not follow what we would call precedent. Indeed, it was contrary to the express intentions of those who drafted the convention, as a study of the travaux préparatoires would make plain.
Time does not permit tonight a lengthy exegesis, but for those who would benefit from further learning on this topic, I recommend the recent policy exchange paper, Rule 39 and the Rule of Law, by Richard Ekins KC (Hon), professor of law and constitutional government at the University of Oxford, with a preface by Lord Hoffmann, formerly a judge of the House of Lords, and a foreword by Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court justice. It is important for us all to understand that Rule 39(1) states:
“The Chamber or, where appropriate, the President of the Section or a duty judge appointed pursuant to paragraph 4 of this Rule may, at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of their own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which they consider should be adopted in the interests of the parties or of the proper conduct of the proceedings”.
That is just an indication of view or, as Lord Hoffmann says, a shot across the bows. It is not a power to make an order or direction against a contracting party. The court has not been given power under the convention to make an interim order binding on a party to the convention. The convention does not, in terms, as it would have to, confer a power to grant binding interim relief. The member states, including this country, made a deliberate decision in 1949, and subsequently, not to empower the court in this way.
I have already referred to Lord Sumption. He described Professor Ekins’s arguments as timely and powerful. In the preface to the paper, Lord Hoffmann explains that a ruling of a court such as the Strasbourg court is binding upon parties only if the court had jurisdiction to make it, and that not only is there nothing in the language of the convention which expressly confers such a power but that the usual aids to the construction of a treaty—the travaux préparatoires and the subsequent practice of the court—reflect a clear understanding that no such power exists. The court does not have jurisdiction.
What has happened in the court’s recent jurisprudence is that this advisory power—a sensible advisory power—has been assumed to be a power to grant legally binding interlocutory relief. In short, there is no breach of treaty obligations by the United Kingdom if it does not comply with an interim direction, so Clause 53 should remain and Amendment 119 is inappropriate.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, threw down a verbal gauntlet, so let me try to pick it up and answer the central question that she posed. That was this: why should the UK think that it does not have to abide by Rule 39 indications from the court in Strasbourg? The short answer is that the Strasbourg court does not have jurisdiction to grant those Rule 39 indications and certainly not in the manner in which they are currently granted. I will develop that point shortly, but the fact that it is a jurisdictional point—I would say, with respect, that jurisdiction ought to unite all lawyers, even commercial lawyers—means that whether the court has jurisdiction or not is pretty important. I will focus my remarks on Clause 53 and the amendments thereto. I yield to nobody in my respect for the rule of law.
There is a great danger, which happens here and in other places, of the following syllogism being rolled out: the rule of law is a good thing, this—whatever issue you are talking about—is a good thing and therefore this is part of the rule of law. Well, it is not always. Even what is incorporated within the rule of law is a matter of some debate. One can compare the famous work of Lord Bingham, which is expansive to the work of Sir John Laws, which is rather narrower. But this is not about whether we have respect for the rule of law. It is about whether the Strasbourg court in fact has jurisdiction. To put the matter in that way shows respect for the rule of law, because jurisdiction is fundamental to that. Certainly, as far as I am concerned—I am sure as far as the Minister is concerned as well— words such as “game” and “swindle” are not entirely appropriate ways of approaching this topic.
I spoke on this point on Second Reading; we are now in Committee and I am not going to give a Second Reading speech. I expanded on it for those few people who did not read Hansard in the Daily Telegraph a week or so ago. What happened since Second Reading —I touched on it in my piece in the Telegraph—is, as my noble friend Lord Sandhurst mentioned, a powerfully argued paper from Professor Richard Ekins at Policy Exchange. It is unfortunate that in opening the debate on this the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, did not engage with any of the arguments in that paper; I do not think that she even mentioned it. The paper is a fine piece of legal work. You can agree or disagree with the conclusions. I am going to be disagreeing with the conclusions of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That, I hope, does not indicate any disrespect or discourtesy towards any of the people who sit on that committee; I just disagree with their conclusions. But I am going to deal with their argument because, if I do not, it is difficult to see how the land actually lies. Again, as my noble friend mentioned, we have a preface and a foreword by Lord Sumption the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, two names that, frankly, should make any lawyer sit up and take notice. Even if one does not agree with the conclusion, one has to engage with the arguments.
The main thrust behind the amendments and the clause stand part debate is that the clause breaches international law. That raises the question of whether we have an international law obligation to abide by Rule 39 indications. The short answer is that, no, we do not. Why do we not? Because we have signed up in the convention to abide by judgments of the Strasbourg court against the UK and Article 46(1) where the judgment is of the full court. This is not a final judgment—it is not of the full court—so we have no obligation under Article 46(1).
The Strasbourg court then tries to ground its jurisdiction in Article 34. The reason why it does that— I will not repeat what my noble friend said—is that there is a history to this. There was a suggestion in the draft, back in the 1940s, that the court would have the right to give interim relief. That was deliberately excluded. People tried to persuade the court that it should have that power, but that was rebuffed. The court gave a series of judgments setting out that it did not have that power, but then it did a volte-face and by a majority—I think of one, but I may be mistaken—it held that it did have that power. Of course, the court can change its own jurisprudence, but what it cannot do is to arrogate to itself the jurisdiction. In international law, the court has only the powers that the member states have given to it.
What does the court do? The court seeks to ground its power in Article 34 of the convention. What is Article 34? It is the right not to have your right of access to the courts impeded. I accept that there will be cases where you could justify interim relief and Article 34; a death penalty case would be one of them, as you cannot unscramble that later on, for obvious reasons. However, there will not be many cases like that. The Rwanda case last year was not a case like that. That was a case where the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court had all held that the Government’s promise to bring people back if they were to win meant that there was no impedance of their human rights. That point was decided three times in this jurisdiction, so that was certainly not an Article 34 case.
It also does two other things. First, it shows that if the Strasbourg court is doing a balancing act under American Cyanamid, it is odd that it reached completely the opposite conclusion from that reached by three courts here when applying that approach. Secondly, it belies another point put to the Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in relation to Clause 52. She made the point that if courts here have the ability to grant interim relief, Strasbourg will not interfere. Three courts here heard the Rwanda case and Strasbourg still interfered. I am not sure that that argument works.
Where I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, is that there is a procedural problem as well as a substantive problem. The procedural problem cannot solve the jurisdictional problem but makes it worse. Why is there a procedural problem? There is a procedural problem because the rules and procedures do not cater for this jurisdiction, as it has been created out of whole cloth. That is why we have a system at the moment where there is no effective natural justice, where these injunctions are given and indications are made without the state being heard and, importantly, without there being a proper opportunity for the state to put its case even after the indication has been made. That is why these orders are given by a single judge when—the detail is in Professor Ekins’s paper—under the structure of the Strasbourg court a single judge should not have and does not have the powers to do this.
Does this mean that there are no circumstances in which a Rule 39 order can be justified? No, I do not go so far as that. I have already identified a death penalty case as such a case. However, one needs to have a proper review of the court’s jurisdiction. One also needs to have a proper procedure; again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who said that it ought to be possible to create such a procedure. It ought to be possible and it must be possible. If one therefore has a Rule 39 indication with a proper procedure which is grounded in Article 34, which recognises the principle of subsidiarity that is now inherent in the court’s jurisprudence and which gives the state an opportunity to come back in a proper timeframe against the order that has been made, I suggest all of that is the way through.
I will take two minutes, if I may, to say something about the report of the JCHR, because it is an important piece of work and I have read it carefully. On page 45, there is a heading before paragraph 129:
“What are the legal implications of this clause?”
This is Clause 53. It goes on to say that some commentators have suggested that
“the UK is not bound to comply with”
Rule 39 orders. It goes on:
“This is particularly because Article 46 of the Convention, which concerns the ‘Binding force and execution of judgments’, only commits the UK to abide by ‘the final judgment of the Court’ and does not mention interim measures”.
I agree with that, except it is only judgments against the UK, but we will let that pass. It goes on to say that the Grand Chamber in Strasbourg
“has held that a failure to comply with interim measures would amount to a violation of Article 34”.
That is right; that is what it has held. It goes on to say, in paragraph 130:
“It is therefore a binding obligation, as a matter of international law, for the UK to act in accordance with interim measures”.
What is the force of that “therefore”? Because the Strasbourg court has held—in the last sentence of paragraph 129—that it would be a violation of Article 34, it is therefore a binding obligation. With the greatest respect to the Committee and whoever authored that part of the report, that is what—before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, banned the use of Latin in our domestic courts—used to be called an ipse dixit. That “therefore” is a conclusory statement; you simply cannot justify the jurisdiction by saying that the court itself says that it has jurisdiction. That is an entirely circular argument. If I could win all my cases with reasoning like that, it would be a very good thing, even though I am only a commercial lawyer.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I beg the noble Lord’s indulgence in standing up and asking him a question. I was piqued by a tweet by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who is not in his place. He intervened on a Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, last Tuesday. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was replying. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out:
“The member Governments of the Council of Europe, including our own, have repeatedly confirmed the binding nature of interim measures under Rule 39—in the Committee of Ministers, and in the Izmir and Brighton declarations. Is the Minister proud of the United Kingdom’s record of compliance with interim measures?”
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, replied:
“On the general point about acceptance in practice of the position of interim measures under the convention, there are two legal views”.—[Official Report, 6/6/23; col. 1244.]
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others have talked about the paper by Professor Ekins for Policy Exchange and that is a view, but the Minister did not confirm last week that he shared that view. Clause 53 does not actually say that the Government think that interim measures from Strasbourg are not binding. The tweet by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, noticed that the Minister
“declined to commit to the long-standing governmental position that”
interim measures
“are binding in international law. Views can always change, but surely the government has one”.
What we have not established is what the view of the Government, as opposed to that of Policy Exchange and Professor Ekins, is on whether interim measures from Strasbourg are binding. Our long-standing practice has been to comply with those interim measures. That is what is more important. With full respect to Policy Exchange and Professor Ekins, that is all very interesting, but what is the Government’s view? I do not think that what we are getting out of this whole affair is finding, among this thicket of confusion, what the position of this current British Government is on whether interim measures from Strasbourg should be observed. Indeed, on the Rwanda case, they did observe them, so that is quite different from commentary from Policy Exchange.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful for that short intervention. I am now not sure whether I am intervening on the noble Baroness’s speech or she is intervening on mine but she made a couple of points. I do not know whether she has seen my notes because I was going to come to the state practice point in a moment. Frankly, I should not really give this away but that point is probably the best point against the arguments that I am running. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, did not mention it but I shall do so; it is the best point. I am not speaking for the Government so I am not going to divine what is in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, or that of the Minister who will respond; they can speak for themselves and I will speak for myself.
What I was saying is twofold. First, I was not saying that there are no circumstances in which you cannot justify a Rule 39 order. I thought I had made it clear that, if you can justify it properly under Article 34 in the particular circumstances of the case—such as a death penalty case—and there are proper natural justice provisions, it could be justified. That is my first point.
My second point is that the mere fact that states abide by Rule 39 indications will not, I suggest, be enough for state practice as a matter of international law. The fact that a court tells me to do X and I do it does not show that I accept that the court has jurisdiction to tell me to do it. I might choose to do it because I do not want to pick a fight with the court. One has to find a more detailed and forthright statement that is sufficiently unambiguous, and then look at that coupled with everything else.
I have delayed the Committee long enough. On this point, I direct the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to Policy Exchange, on which she is absolutely right. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, was picked up and dealt with by Professor Ekins in that report.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Before I give way, may I make one other short point? I respectfully suggest that state practice cannot give a court jurisdiction when it does not have it. All state practice can do is go to the interpretation of a treaty. It does not go to the creation of a power or a jurisdiction; that point may not be one to discuss as the clock strikes midnight, but now is a good time for me to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I draw his attention to the current, as of today, UK Visas and Immigration guidance, Judicial Reviews, Injunctions and Applications to the European Court of Human Rights. Where it deals with Rule 39, it says that
“a Rule 39 indication is similar to an Administrative Court … injunction but is”,
to state the obvious, made by the European Court of Human Rights. It goes on:
“Where you have been notified that a rule 39 indication has been made, you must … defer removal immediately”
and,
“where the person is detained, make sure this development is considered in relation to any decision to continue with detention”.
In other words, in their current guidance on the subjects that we are concerned with, the Government regard these Rule 39 rulings as binding. That is what the guidance tells the members of the public who have bothered to look at the Government’s own website this evening, as I have.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I think that goes back to the point I was making a moment ago. With the greatest respect—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is going to intervene; I will give way if he wants to do so, of course.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It strikes me, in reading this clause, that it proceeds on the basis that the UK is bound by the decision. I greatly respect the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has given us—I am very much in sympathy with it—but, like it or not, the Government’s position has been that it is binding. That is why the clause is so carefully drafted.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
On that, I entirely agree: the clause is very carefully drafted. The Government’s position—as I understand it and I will stop in a moment so we can actually hear from the person we want to hear from, the Minister—is first that they wish to, and will always, abide by international law. Secondly, it gives the Minister a discretion in some circumstances not to abide by Rule 39 orders. It seems to me that if one puts those together the Government’s position has to be that there are at least some circumstances in which you do not abide by a Rule 39 order without breaching international law; otherwise, the two propositions which I set out cannot be put together.
I hope that is an answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question. I am not sure whether the smile indicates it is or is not—
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I think we really have to hear from the Minister, frankly. The clause does set out the various objections and by our jurisprudence the procedures are very defective and I can well understand why one is very uneasy about the whole structure of the rule. The Minister really has to explain the Government’s position and I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that that question needs to be answered.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
In which case, I will give one final statement before I finish. On this we all agree—the answer to this issue, I suggest, lies ultimately in Reykjavik. The answer lies in the engagement between this Government and other Governments with the Strasbourg court to improve the jurisprudence, to set the jurisdiction on a proper footing and to improve the procedures. In that way, for those of us—and I include myself—who want this country to remain part of the convention and play a part in its jurisprudence, that is surely the way forward.
Lord Paddick (LD)
If I understand the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, correctly, he is saying that the solution is not Clause 53 but to engage with the court to ensure that proper processes are followed when it comes to Rule 39 rulings.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My point is that I am supporting Clause 53. It is not inconsistent to say that we will have Clause 53 and will engage with the court.
Lord Paddick (LD)
What I am hearing from the noble Lords opposite is that if the Government ignored Rule 39 it would not be a breach of international law. But the Government accept that Rule 39 is binding on them; otherwise, there would be flights to Rwanda, surely.
The other thing to say about the two clauses is the stunning silence about Clause 52—absolutely no comment at all. For the noble Lords opposite to say this is not about the rule of law when they have said nothing at all to defend Clause 52 is quite extraordinary.
I think enough has been said—and there has been a very interesting sideshow for 20 or 25 minutes from the noble Lords opposite—but it takes us no further forward as far as the arguments here are concerned. Even if one was to accept the arguments of Policy Exchange, there has been no argument about the fact that Clause 52 is contrary to the rule of law, and that is why we believe that neither Clause 52 nor Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I think everybody is really waiting to hear what the Minister has to say about this. It has been a fascinating debate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it appears that Government, whatever the rights and wrongs, accept Rule 39—the Minister made that very clear in what he read out—and yet we have had the silence about Clause 52. I do not think I can add anything of substance to the debate at this stage and I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 52 underpins the suspensive claims and appeals process by prohibiting the courts from granting interim remedies in relation to any other proceedings which would prevent or delay the removal of an illegal entrant subject to the duty. Amendments 116 and 117 would require the Home Secretary to provide a statement to Parliament, on a case-by-case basis, explaining why the courts should prevent the granting of an interim remedy and for this to be approved by the other place—and only the other place, I note—before the restrictions set out in Clause 52 could come into effect.
These amendments seriously risk undermining our efforts swiftly to remove illegal entrants from the UK. To prevent the courts granting an interim remedy and delaying removal, it would be necessary to seek parliamentary approval in every case subject to the duty to remove. This, I am sure the Committee will agree, is simply not practicable; nor is it necessary or appropriate.
These amendments are fundamentally misconceived. They proceed on the basis that there is an individual rationale for barring interim remedies in each case, but the rationale is universal; namely, that the Bill itself provides for a mechanism for a person subject to the duty to remove to challenge their removal and for removal to be suspended while the claim and any appeal to the Upper Tribunal have yet to be determined. That being the case, it is the Government’s contention that there is no case for the courts separately to grant interim remedies. The blanket approach taken by Clause 52 is therefore entirely appropriate, and I suggest to the Committee that that is an entire answer to the second point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Clause 52 will encourage compliance with the suspensive claims process. It also provides an effective safeguard against other types of legal challenges being brought in an attempt to thwart removal. This will ensure that our ability promptly to remove those with no legal right to be in the UK is not undermined.
Turning then to what may be seen as the main event, Clause 53, I want to make it clear from the outset that the UK is fundamentally committed to the international rules-based order and there is nothing in this clause which requires us to act incompatibly with our international obligations. Under Rule 39, an interim measure may be indicated by the European Court of Human Rights where there is an imminent risk of irreparable harm. The inclusion of Clause 53 reflects the concerns we have raised with the Strasbourg court about its interim measures process, as identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
We want the interim measures process to have greater transparency and fairness to ensure the proper administration of justice, reflecting what we would apply in a domestic scenario, as identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. This includes clear and reasoned decisions and an opportunity to make meaningful representations before and after a decision is made. It cannot be right that our ability to control our borders is undermined by an opaque process conducted at the last minute, with no formal chance to put forward our case or to appeal that decision. This process risks derailing our efforts to tackle the people smugglers and prevent people making dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel.
Clause 53 affords the Home Secretary, or other Minister of the Crown, personal discretion to suspend the duty where an interim measure has been indicated. This will mean that a Minister may suspend removal in response to a Rule 39 interim measure but, crucially, is not bound by UK law to do so. This will be dependent upon the individual facts of each case. For broader context, I direct noble Lords to the recent and well substantiated paper by Professor Ekins of Policy Exchange, already discussed by the Committee, together with its valuable forewords written by Lord Sumption and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann. The key arguments made by Professor Ekins were helpfully summarised and powerfully expanded upon by my noble friends Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, who I know will have given great consideration to the Strasbourg court’s jurisdiction and procedural rules in their preparation for the Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate—it was not that short—and even more grateful to those who sat through it without getting anything off their chest. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who pointed out, and I agree, that the double act of the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Wolfson, did not help the Government very much, nor was the Committee hugely assisted. To suggest that rulings of interim measures indicated by the court are not binding or important except sometimes is a very strange approach to any kind of court order or indication. If a court order is important only sometimes, we get into who gets to choose and when, which is not the way to develop any kind of trust between people, nations or legal systems.
Neither of the noble Lords mentioned the Russia situation or answered on whether it would be okay for the Russian Federation now to ignore interim indications that prisoners of war in the Russia-Ukraine conflict should not be executed. They also did not mention that, in an earlier group, the Government prayed in aid the Strasbourg test as the test that they want to adopt before anyone can have a non-suspensive claim. That is odd, because you would expect the Strasbourg court to trust Governments more than you would expect His Majesty’s Government to trust removal of individual people to places outside the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for pointing out that Clause 52, which is about our own courts, was totally ignored in the extensive vaudeville. We had the pleasure of the vaudeville but there was no mention of the ouster in Clause 52 of our own courts, and that is rather telling. However, I am grateful to the Minister. I think he got to the point of the debate between us in his closing remarks. He talks about the last-minute opaque process. With emergency interim measures, there is always the possibility for ex parte—get the judge out of the Garrick Club late at night or get the judge up in his or her pyjamas. The crucial thing is that I agree with the Minister that thereafter, even if that emergency relief has to be granted, even ex parte, there ought to be the possibility of looking again, with both parties represented. The Minister and I agree about that.
I think that Clause 52 is totally unconscionable. I think that Clause 53 is the Government’s attempt at negotiating. We are negotiating now by legislation—so we do policy by legislation and now we do negotiation with the Council of Europe via this legislation. I disagree about whether that is the right way to make friends and influence people, but it may be that I am wrong about that. Perhaps it will work, but if it has not worked by the time of Report I will be back, and I will be urging the Committee, and by that point the whole House, to reject not just Clause 53 but Clause 52 as well. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 53, line 40.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 53, line 40.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment corrects the references to the Clauses in the Bill under which advocacy in the Upper Tribunal can take place, and adds a reference to the Tribunal Procedure Rules made for the purposes of those Clauses.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reinstates the right of appeal against age assessments in respect of putative children whom there is a duty to remove under the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in moving Amendment 121 I shall speak to Amendments 122 and 126 in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, for their support. My comments will also be in support of Amendments 124 and 125, which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Before I get going, I note that on the Nationality and Borders Bill the debate on age assessment took place at 2.30 am on 9 February last year. We now find ourselves at 12:25 am discussing age assessments once again. Age assessments are serious matters. I know that it was not designed that this has happened again but it is extremely unfortunate, and since we have more time on Wednesday, I think we could have moved this to Wednesday. However, we have not, so I will carry on.
I believe strongly that these changes need to be made to Clauses 55 and 56 if we are to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are protected. I will try to be brief, but they are critical amendments that are worthy of full consideration. It is vital that we adequately scrutinise the impact this Bill will have on children; it is therefore a failure in their safeguarding responsibility for the Government not even to have produced a child rights impact assessment. They are asking this Chamber to agree to these additional clauses on age assessments, added on Report in the other place, which on their own admission are more likely than not to be incompatible with conventions under the ECHR—not on the rights of anyone here today but on the rights of children. We have a duty to ensure that their voices are heard. Will the Minister guarantee that an assessment will be published before Report?
The Home Secretary’s duty to detain and remove all those who meet the conditions laid out in Clause 2 does not apply to unaccompanied minors before they reach the age of 18. Therefore, it is clear that if the Home Office inaccurately assesses the age of a child and deems them to be an adult when this is not the case, and they are subsequently removed, the consequences would be irreversible. Can the Minister confirm that the removal of a child in these circumstances would be unlawful?
I was going to follow up by asking whether, in these circumstances, steps would be made to retrieve the child and bring them back under the child protection system in the UK, but the Bill also introduces no right of appeal for a child to challenge an age assessment and places significant limitations on judicial review, so we may not know whether a child has been deported unlawfully. I therefore ask the Minister: when a judicial review is ongoing and the claim is continued out of country and is successful, will arrangements be made for this child to be returned to the UK?
The lack of data required adequately to scrutinise this legislation has been a common theme throughout the Bill and is a prevalent issue for age assessments. The Government currently do not share how many age dispute cases are of children who have initially been sent into the adult system after a flawed decision on their age. However, even based on the incomplete data published by the Home Office, we can see that last year nearly two-thirds of all age dispute cases were found to be children—that was 1,042 children who, if this Bill had been in operation, would have been eligible for removal to a third country.
Numbers are important. The Minister of State justified the inclusion of Clauses 55 and 56 in the Bill by saying that
“around 50% of those people who are assessed are ultimately determined to be adults”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 777.]
Can the Minister confirm that this figure is misleading, given that it includes individuals subsequently found to be children after referral to a local authority? A detailed report by the Helen Bamber Foundation found that, of the 1,386 individuals referred to local authorities in 2022, 867 were found to be children and had therefore been placed at risk of significant harm when in adult-based accommodation.
It is not surprising that visual-age assessments by immigration officers can lead to inaccurate judgments. The Home Office’s own guidance for the National Age Assessment Board states clearly that
“physical appearance is a notoriously unreliable basis for assessment of chronological age”
and
“demeanour can also be notoriously unreliable and by itself constitutes only somewhat fragile material”.
Given this acknowledgement, can the Minister confirm that when an individual’s age is disputed, they will not be subject to removal before having met with a social worker and child protection team for a more comprehensive age-assessment process?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 124 and 125 are in my name and they have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who cannot be here but wanted me to say that she strongly supports the amendments, and the right reverend Prelate. I also support other amendments to which I have added my name—indeed, all amendments in this group, including the propositions that Clauses 55 and 56 should not stand part of the Bill. My amendments are more limited and would simply remove the power through regulation to treat those claiming to be a child as an adult, should they refuse to consent to scientific age assessment, and instead stipulate that regulations must make it clear that refusal to consent to such an assessment should not be taken to damage credibility.
The Immigration Minister justified the introduction of these clauses by way of government amendment on the unevidenced grounds that
“a very large number of young adults do pose as children”
and that he did not want
“to see a situation in which young adults are regularly coming into the UK illegally, posing as children, and ending up in our schools, in foster-care families and in unaccompanied-minor hotels, living cheek by jowl with genuine children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 777.]
The new provisions would, he concluded, help to “stamp out this evil”. Clearly, it was not such an evil that these provisions were included in the original Bill. Instead, they appear to be a response to an assertion in Committee from Ben Bradley MP, again unevidenced. Yet, as the JCHR points out, it is not clear why the Government are legislating again on the issue so soon after passing the Nationality and Borders Act, without first subjecting that to post-legislative scrutiny.
More detailed evidence published around the same time by the Helen Bamber Foundation and cited by the right reverend Prelate indicated that the Minister had “wildly”—its word—exaggerated the proportion of age-disputed children found to be adults; this was based on freedom of information requests. Just today, Full Fact reported that a claim made in Parliament by the Immigration Minister that up to a fifth of adult male asylum seekers pretend to be children on arrival was false. FoI data showed that, between January and November last year, the actual figure was 1%. Can the Minister explain the discrepancy please?
This all reinforces the evidence from a Refugee Council study last year, which found that only 14 out of 223 young people with whom it worked in 2021, whose age had initially been determined as “certainly adult” by the Home Office, were in fact found to be adult. The council expressed serious concern that the wrongful assessment of children as adults is causing long-term harm to children as well as significant safeguarding risks. More recently, some of the children it has helped, who are at risk of being sent to Rwanda because of wrongful assessment, spoke of their fear and shock.
A different form of evidence came last year from a highly critical report by the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on the processing of small boat arrivals. It said:
“The treatment of those claiming to be children was not child-centred …The age assessment process was perfunctory and engagement with the young people was minimal”.
As the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee pointed out, safeguarding issues do not arise only when adults pose as children. It said in a report:
“There is an equally important safeguarding issue when minors are incorrectly aged as adults and so inappropriately placed in adult facilities where they may be at risk”.
The implications of all this have become that much more serious in the context of Clauses 55 and 56 and of changes to age assessment—rejected by this House last year, to no avail. Our main focus last year was the introduction of scientific assessment and, in particular, the use of X-rays, in response to considerable concerns voiced by health bodies such as the British Dental Association and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The latter is particularly concerned about Clauses 55 and 56 in the current Bill, noting that
“The science on age assessment is not robust enough to accurately determine a person’s age, which could result in a child being incorrectly assessed as an adult”.
The interim advisory committee itself proposed a cautious approach given that:
“There is no method, biological or social worker-led, that can predict age with precision”.
It also advocated that
“Any methodology used for the assessment of age must respect and prioritise the dignity of the individual being assessed and should minimise physical or psychological harm”.
I would argue that these clauses do not respect and prioritise the dignity of the child, as they are based on the assumption that the child is lying.
Crucial here is the issue of consent, on which the committee’s recommendation was very clear, saying that the child
“should be provided with clear information explaining the risks and benefits of biological evaluation in a format that allows the person undergoing the process to give informed consent and no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”.
The committee’s advice underlined that
“in cases of refusal, the applicant should not be automatically considered an adult”,
and that:
“The consequences of refusal should not be so disproportionately adverse as to bias the applicant towards consent”.
It advised that
“it should be accepted that there may be many reasons”
for refusal to consent to biological assessment, which reflect different backgrounds. For example, the child may
“have witnessed or experienced trauma from their own homeland’s government institutions and may view all authority with suspicion and fear”.
Critical too is the question of capacity for consent. Can the Minister say how capacity will be determined and what will happen to children who lack the capacity to consent to the use of scientific methods? The British Association of Social Workers makes the point:
“The question of whether the asylum seeker can consent to the medical intervention is completely separate from the question of whether they are a child”.
Yet Clause 56, which gives the Home Secretary considerable discretion through regulations, in effect conflates the two. In doing so, it undermines the possibility of genuine consent and risks further trauma for children.
In response to the interim advisory committee’s report, the CEO of the Refugee Council said:
“These children simply want to start rebuilding their lives after the traumatic experiences they went through. They put their trust in us hoping they will get the support they need — it’s vital that they are safeguarded and provided the care that they need as they go through the system. The government must not ignore the committee’s findings”.
Can the Minister explain why the Government have ignored the very clear advice of their own advisory committee on the question of consent?
Do the Government at least accept the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that
“The power in clause 56(1) has such significant implications for an individual’s legal rights that it should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure”,
and the committee’s suggestion that “indicative draft regulations” should be made available during the Bill’s passage? In a similar vein, the JCHR recommends that guidance is issued
“as soon as possible setting out what would constitute reasonable grounds for refusing consent”.
Can we expect to see this before Report?
The Constitution Committee also warned that Clause 55 raises serious legal and constitutional issues. Others are better placed to pursue these, but as Justice, among others, points out, it “drastically reduces the accountability” of the Home Secretary for complex decisions about age and permits a child’s
“deportation when they are still pursuing a legal claim that they are a child”—
the normal right of appeal having been abolished.
The supplementary ECHR memo states that the Government
“concluded that it is important to make this change to prevent individuals frustrating the aims of the Bill”.
Could the Minister explain how this mean-minded conclusion can justify the limitations on a child’s rights? As the JCHR points out, this is clearly not in any child’s best interests and is not, in its view, reasonable given the
“far-reaching consequences for their treatment, their lives and their rights”.
What is the Government’s response to the clear recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that age-disputed children should not be removed to a third country? What steps will be taken to ensure that, in the words of the memo,
“The appropriate support and facilities”
are
“in place in the country of removal to ensure that the individual can effectively participate in their judicial review from abroad”?
Even with Zoom et cetera, it is difficult to see how a child can participate effectively from afar.
In conclusion, I simply quote the Children’s Commissioner, who has said in no uncertain terms that it is unacceptable to treat a child as an adult on the basis of their refusal to consent to scientific methods. She asks how genuine consent is possible, free from duress, given the implications of not consenting. She concludes:
“Where a child’s age is disputed … those awaiting resolution should be treated as vulnerable children first and foremost”.
Instead, as elsewhere in this Bill, it is a case of migrant first, not child first and certainly not child foremost.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 123 and 140, following on the points made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. Amendment 123 in the name of my noble friend Lord Anderson, and to which I have added my name, is directed to the provision about judicial review in Clause 55(5), to which the right reverend Prelate drew our attention. His amendments ask for subsections (2) and (4) to be taken out, while this amendment asks for subsection (5) to be taken out, so I am building on the very impressive speech he made earlier.
The provision we seek to have removed states that a court “may quash the decision” relating to a person’s age only on the basis that it was wrong in law, not because
“the court considers the decision … wrong as a matter of fact”.
That is a very considerable restriction. As the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report on the Bill, errors are normally made in this context,
“not because of an error as to the definition of ‘a child’”,
which should be an issue of law, but
“because of problems with evidence to prove that an individual is under 18”.
Indeed, it is very hard to think of any error of law, in the proper sense of that phrase, that might arise in the context of age assessment. The effect of this restriction is to exclude judicial review, even in a case where there is an error of fact which no reasonable decision-taker, taking reasonable care, would have made. That is quite an extraordinary situation to be created by a provision in a Bill of this kind.
The report of the JCHR, which has been referred to often in these debates, says:
“Given errors of fact are highly likely when conducting age assessments based on subjective judgment, this is extremely concerning and gives carte blanche to Home Office errors”.
Without elaborating on that point—instead, I endorse all the points made by the right reverend Prelate—we suggest, in this amendment, that the restriction in Clause 55(5) is unreasonable, given the nature of the assessments that have been made; therefore, it should simply be deleted from the Bill.
While Amendment 123 is about something to be taken out from the Bill, Amendment 140 raises a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is about the power in Clause 56(1) to make regulations about the effect of a decision by a person
“not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of”
that person’s
“age assessment … where there are no reasonable grounds for”
that decision. The scope of the power, as explained in Clause 56(2), extends to setting out the circumstances in which civil legal services—in other words, civil legal aid—is not to be available to that person, and the person
“is to be treated as if the decision-maker had decided that”
the person
“was over the age of 18”.
It is significant that the clause does not go so far as to say, without qualification, that, if there are no reasonable grounds for the person’s decision not to consent, the person is to be treated simply as over the age of 18. The approach, which I suppose is to be commended, is to say that it all depends on the circumstances—that is, the purpose of the regulation which will be designed to set out what those circumstances are. Nevertheless, the exercise of this power has serious consequences for the person in respect of whom the power is to be exercised, as the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report.
At present, this power to make regulations is subject to the negative procedure, which we suggest is not appropriate, given the nature of the power being referred to. So our amendment seeks to add regulations made under this power to the list of regulations in Clause 63(4) that
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.
Given the wide scope of this power and the lack of definition of how it will be exercised, we suggest that it is entirely appropriate for it to be added to that list and not subject to the negative procedure. Those are the reasons that the Constitution Committee wishes to put forward, and I give them in support of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for what they said—they said most of what I wanted to say. I declare an interest as chair of University College Hospital’s foundation trust and the Whittington Hospital NHS trust, because it is relevant to what I will say.
When we debated, rather later than this, the Nationality and Borders Bill in February 2022, as the right reverend Prelate observed, we debated something that allowed the Government to introduce regulations that specified scientific methods that could be used to assess age, including examining or measuring parts of a person’s body and analysing saliva, cell or other samples and the DNA within them. As we heard, the use of scientific methods to assess age has long been the subject of debate, and professional medical bodies have been unequivocal in rejecting the use of dental X-rays, bone age and genital examination as extremely imprecise as methods for assessing age, quite apart from being singularly unpleasant. I have not yet met a health professional who thinks that we should use these methods to assess the age of children or young people.
Yet the legislation went ahead and is now being strengthened, and young people who do not consent will be assumed to be adults, which is really worrying for all sorts of reasons already stated in this House. But, of course, it also undermines the fundamental premise that people have to be able to give free consent to any medical procedure or examination and should not be pressured into undergoing them. In the way that these clauses, and this particular clause, are drafted, there is no way in which these young people are not being pressured into undergoing these examinations and procedures. We should take this very seriously because almost every medical and healthcare body would say that this is unethical.
We debated much of this only 15 months ago. Back then, I said that there was wide concern about age assessments among the various voluntary and statutory agencies concerned with young asylum seekers and among many medical, dental and scientific bodies. But, as I said last week, I chair a small family charity in memory of my parents that provides opportunities for education for young asylum seekers, most of whom are slightly older than the group we are discussing here—but a few have not been. Without exception, they all say that the worst of all this is not only the procedures they are being asked to undergo but the fact that they are not believed. It is almost as if there is an assumption that they are not telling the truth.
It is clear that the use of some of these procedures is unethical—certainly if it is not for the young person’s benefit. Since that is the case, can the Minister tell the Committee why a young person or child who does not give consent to these procedures should always be disbelieved, and why they should be regarded as an adult if they do not consent? As a parliamentary body, we have to look at this really seriously. If we do not trust young people at all to tell us the truth, we are making a terrible assumption about those who come to this country, often traumatised and very vulnerable, looking for a better future.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. In this group, I propose that Clauses 55 and 56 should not stand part of the Bill. I will not repeat the points or arguments made so eloquently by noble Lords, save to say to the Minister that I echo all the questions that they posed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the errors with age assessment. Given those, for me one of the key points was made by the British Association of Social Workers, which said that social workers are currently responsible for compiling age assessments, known as Merton assessments, but they are designed to ensure that the children’s needs are met—not for immigration purposes. That raises an issue that many doctors have also raised: that these professionals are registered, and in that registration have to abide by the ethics committee of their registration body, and therefore the individual that they are serving. The problem with the proposals in Clauses 55 and 56 is that they will become the agents of the Government and will not be there to best provide for the needs of the individual concerned.
Doctors also make the point that it is absolutely unethical to expose anyone to radiation from X-rays that are not for clinical purposes. There are risks associated with overexposure, particularly for young people who are still growing. I know from my own familial experience that there is quite often a debate between doctors about the frequency of MRI scans and X-rays.
The other problem, also covered by others, is that, should a person refuse to have scientific assessments, they will automatically be deemed adults. That is balanced by the comments made by the Children’s Commissioner about Gillick competence. I have not heard anybody else ask the Minister what government body will be responsible for ensuring that anybody who is deemed an adult but in fact is not, and therefore should have been under local authority care, will be able to access medical treatment and any other care that they would have been given had they had looked-after status and been with a local authority. Perhaps the slightly shorter way of saying that is to return to the question that we have covered quite a lot of times here in Committee: what is the role of the Home Office in all this, when the status of the child—or potential child—is not understood?
At Second Reading, when I raised this issue about the technology and asked why the clauses should remain in the Bill, the Minister said that he agreed that the technology was not ready but asserted that the clauses should remain because it was quite probable that it would be ready in a fairly short space of time. All the evidence that we have had, including from the previous Home Secretary’s committee, says that it is not ready and that, although it might come, there is absolutely no clear date on the horizon.
From the perspective of these Benches, the science does not work and there is no firm data or technology to show that it will; all the professionals involved have ethical considerations about the registration bodies, and these two clauses would force them to move away from that; carrying out tests such as MRI scans and X-rays for non-clinical reasons could well damage the people undergoing them; and, finally, there is the question of whether the child can give consent, not just because of Gillick competence but because their language ability and the trauma they have been through might not allow them to do so under duress. That is why we believe the only solution is to remove Clauses 55 and 56.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments. I shall not speak particularly to my Amendment 127, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because the debate has focused on some of the other amendments in the group and, given the hour, it is probably important to say a few words about those.
I start by saying to the Government that, unless they listen to some of the points that have been made by many noble Lords, children who deserve support will not receive it. That is the reality. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to look at what the Bill says and, at the very least, mitigate some of it and tighten up some of the various procedures.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these clauses and amendments take us on to the provisions regarding age assessments. As I set out last week, the duty to make arrangements for removal in Clause 2 of the Bill does not apply to unaccompanied children until they reach adulthood. There is a power to remove them, but the Bill provides, as the Committee well knows, that this may be exercised only in very limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of reunion with a parent or where removal is to a safe country of origin.
Given that unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the Bill, and the obvious safeguarding risks of adults purporting to be children being placed within our care system, it is important that we take steps to deter adults from claiming to be children and to avoid lengthy legal challenges to age-assessment decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. Receiving care and services reserved for children also incurs costs and reduces accessibility of these services for genuine children who need them.
Assessing age is inherently difficult, as the right reverend Prelate identified. However, it is crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children, given that unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under this Bill. Our data shows that between 2016 and March 2023 there were 8,611 asylum cases where age was disputed and subsequently resolved following an age assessment, of which nearly half—47%, 4,088 individuals—were found to be adults. Accordingly, Clause 55 disapplies the yet to be commenced right of appeal for age assessments, established in Section 54 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, for those who meet the four conditions in Clause 2 of this Bill. Instead, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, but that review will not suspend removal and can continue from outside the UK after they have been removed.
In addition, Clause 55(5), identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The Minister referred to the figures increasing for disputed children, because the figures in 2021 had increased. I am looking at the information from the Helen Bamber Foundation. The foundation makes the point that in 2021, the Home Office started publishing statistics which included children who were being treated as adults by the Home Office after a short visual assessment only, but the actual data has not been disaggregated beyond that. Does the Minister recognise that it is apples and pears—it is not looking at the same thing? A different group of children were being included within the data.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not recognise those statistics, but I will of course look at the Helen Bamber Foundation report that the noble Baroness identifies. The facts are stark. As I have already identified, a large proportion of disputed age-assessment cases result in the applicant being found to be over 18.
Clause 55(5), as commented upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, seeks to ensure that age assessment judicial reviews will be considered by the courts on normal public law principles such as rationality, public law unreasonableness and procedural fairness. Such a challenge on these grounds is not as restrictive as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has suggested. However, Clause 55(5) will seek to ensure that the court does not consider age as a matter of fact and will not substitute its own decision on age, distinguishing itself from the position of the Supreme Court in the judgment of R (on the application of A) v London Borough of Croydon 2009.
Amendments 121 to 123, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, seek to negate these provisions by omitting Clause 55(2), (4) and (5). They are not amendments which I can commend to the Committee. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked whether a person would be returned to the UK if a judicial review was successful. This would depend on the nature of the court’s judgment and any associated order. We will, of course, comply with any order of the court.
Amendments 124 to 126, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, would similarly have the effect of neutering Clause 56. Clause 56 again seeks to disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children by making use of scientific age-assessment methods already employed in many other European countries, including the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Specifically, Clause 56 will enable us to bring forward regulations to provide that a person is to be treated as an adult if they refuse to consent to specified scientific methods for the purpose of age assessment, and the clause already provides that this would be the case only if the refusal was without good reason. I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords that the regulation-making power will not be exercised until the science is sufficiently accurate to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood.
Given this, it would be premature to provide draft regulations as to the level of parliamentary scrutiny to apply to those regulations. We note the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the affirmative procedure should apply—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—and we will respond in advance of the next stage.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can I just pick up something before the Minister leaves this point? If I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, correctly, she wanted to know how a child could consent to a scientific assessment that assesses their age.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
They participate in the particular type of medical scan that is utilised. That is the practice adopted by our European partners.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Whether it is adopted by our European partners or not, Gillick competence is the key UK law that is used to decide whether a child can or cannot do it. It is not just Gillick competence; it is about whether they have the language to understand what is being asked of them. Could the Minister respond on the Gillick competence point, please? That is UK law.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The provisions in the Bill are clear, and, as I say, in due course draft regulations will be provided, and they will be subject to scrutiny by this House. I am afraid there is little point speculating in the abstract on questions of Gillick competence in the absence of the regulations. But the point is clear that it would be contrary to the purpose of these provisions if an applicant was able simply to refuse to participate in scientific age assessment and that were to have no consequences; that would rob such provisions of efficacy, as the noble Baroness would have to concede, I suggest.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is quite astonishing to hear a Minister of the Crown say, from what I can understand, that a child can therefore be forced to comply with some scientific method of age assessment. In every area of public life in this country, the competence of a child to make a decision is structured in a way that takes into account the fact that they are children, even if, as in this case, they are potentially children. What the Minister is saying is quite astonishing. I have no idea what it means regarding how you assess the age of a child and ensure that that child in some way gives consent. Is there a social worker? Is there someone acting in loco parentis? Is there some sort of structure that means that you cannot just force a child to take part in some sort of scientific method that looks into their age?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I fear that we are speaking at cross purposes. I certainly would not compel any child to participate in age assessment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The whole point is that they are, in effect, being compelled. This point was made by the interim age advisory committee—a committee set up by the Government. Why are the Government ignoring its advice? They are doing the opposite of what it says should be done. It said:
“The consequences of refusal should not be so disproportionately adverse as to bias the applicant towards consent”.
That is exactly what is happening.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is difficult to debate these measures. As I say, in the event that the situation is advanced by the development of these scientific methods and regulations are brought forward, we can have further discussions about the provisions on that occasion. However, in principle, there is nothing wrong with having available a protection that would mark the fact that, if you have scientific age assessment, simply saying “I don’t consent” would provide you with an opportunity not to adhere to the scheme that applies to everyone else. For those reasons, at an abstract level, there is no reason you could not have a situation where willingness to undertake a scientific age assessment is given full weight by a decision-maker in a way that, if someone refused to participate, it might not be. It always depends on the circumstances in regulations.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
I am sorry but can the Minister explain how this can be acceptable when subjecting young people—children—to investigations such as X-rays that are not at all for their benefit is inherently unethical? How can this be justified in the way he has just done?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not sure that I agree with the allegation that this is unethical because, as the noble Baroness may recall, on a previous occasion when the principles of age assessment were discussed in this House, my noble friend Lord Lilley observed that the radiation risk in taking an X-ray is comparable to that of a transatlantic flight. I suggest that, as long as the appropriate safeguards are in place, there is nothing in principle wrong with inviting an applicant who says that they are under 18 to participate in an X-ray procedure.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has expertise that the Committee is not aware of but the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is very clear that every single doctor registered with the GMC—and the equivalents for X-ray technologists and others—would be required, under the terms of their registration, to consider whether the work that they were doing was ethical. It is absolutely confident that it would not be, so one further question here—I do not want us to go into it now because we do not have time—is: how will the Government deliver this measure if all registered professionals are told by their registration bodies that they should not do this work?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Baroness rightly says, now is not the moment to discuss this hypothetical but it is notable that our European neighbours operate such schemes and clearly have professionals who participate. These are all matters that would need to be looked at in the event that the scheme—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Has the Minister had discussions with the GMC and social workers, for example?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Baroness now invites me to embark on a discussion that she just said she did not want to have. I agree with her first position because it is not relevant to the amendment that she raises.
Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on scientific age assessment methods, the attendant scientific advice and the statistics relating to their use. The Home Office already publishes such information: quarterly datasets including age disputes are available on GOV.UK—we have heard references to those in Committee this evening—and, when scientific methods of age assessment are introduced, the Home Office will ensure that we report and monitor that information. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee continues to provide scientific advice to the Home Secretary and the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser. Their first report was published on GOV.UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, identified, and the Government will continue to seek advice from the committee. Given that we already publish the kind of information and data proposed by the noble Lord, I submit that his amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
What is the point of seeking advice if it is then ignored? While I am on my feet, because I was not quick enough earlier, the Minister gave some figures that the right reverend Prelate, other noble Lords and I disputed, but it is as if we have not spoken. The evidence we presented was just ignored. It suggests that government Ministers tend to wildly exaggerate the proportion of children who are wrongly assessed as adults presenting themselves as children. We want the Minister to engage, if not now then in writing, with the figures that we came up with. I am appalled that the Minister has not even read the Helen Bamber Foundation report, because that is the best report on age assessment that there is. I very much hope that at least his officials have read it, but I will leave it at that.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Of course we consider the advice provided by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser, and we will continue to do so. It is because we are in the process of awaiting such advice that the age assessment process is not fully operational. That demonstrates that we take and appreciate the advice that we are given.
As to the information questions, I will look at the statistics that the noble Baroness raises. I do not recognise them immediately, which is not to say that they are not properly reflective. There are a lot of statistics published on the Home Office website, so I appreciate that there may be some conclusions to draw. I will certainly look at that.
Government Amendment 123C is a clarificatory amendment that simply ensures that Clause 55 applies to any decisions following the regulations made under Clause 56, which automatically assumes someone to be an adult as a result of their refusal to consent to a scientific age assessment. It includes a decision as to whether an individual has reasonable grounds to refuse consent to a scientific age assessment.
We cannot escape the fact that almost half of asylum seekers claiming to be children were found to be adults. Those seeking to game the system in this way create clear safeguarding risks to genuine children and delay their removal. Clauses 55 and 56 are a necessary part of the framework of the Bill to ensure that we can swiftly remove those subject to the duty in Clause 2. I therefore invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
The Minister did not allow me to intervene earlier, so will he allow me to intervene now? In what world can he say that a child freely consents to a scientific assessment on the basis that, if that child does not consent, they will be treated as an adult and removed from the United Kingdom?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
We have already canvassed these topics, but there are many ways for a decision-maker to take a refusal to consent into account. It need not be an automatic presumption that somebody is of age; it can be treated in a variety of potential ways, which will be described in the regulations. They will be subject to debate at that time. I am afraid that that is the answer to the noble Lord’s question.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank all noble Lords for contributing to the debate and for interjecting during the Minister’s response with many of the questions that I noted. I repeat what I said earlier: the Minister of State justified the inclusion of Clauses 55 and 56 in the Bill by saying that
“around 50% of those people who are assessed are ultimately determined to be adults”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 777.]
To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said just under 50%, which is a slight change.
However, I went on to ask whether the Minister could confirm that this figure is misleading, given that it includes individuals subsequently found to be children after referral to a local authority. He has not answered that question, but please do not try to do so now; please write. The Helen Bamber Foundation found that 1,386 individuals were referred to local authorities in 2022, of whom 867 were found to be children. That is about 62% to 63%. Clearly, several of us are going to read Hansard very carefully and we would like the Minister to go away and reflect on the figures a bit further.
For all the reasons that have been raised by colleagues, who I thank for all their support—I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his additional proposal, which makes complete sense—the Minister will not be surprised that we are likely to return to this on Report, because we think these things matter enormously.
I think there is an assumption made by the Home Office that it is adults pretending to be children; most of us come at it the other way round, and are worried about children who are deemed to be adults and are therefore placed in unsafe places. Somewhere, the two have got to meet and talk with each other and consider each other. I suggest that the Home Office has some very good conversations with the DfE, social workers and health professionals about how to understand children and how they work, including children who are 16 and 17 years old, because they are still not adults. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 56, line 36 supplement references in Clause 55 to the court with references to the tribunal.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 56, line 33.
“(7A) For the purposes of this section, the cases in which a relevant authority decides the age of a person on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 include where a relevant authority is treated by virtue of regulations under section 56 of this Act as having decided that a person is over the age of 18.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the provisions in Clause 55 about decisions as to a person’s age apply to a case where a decision-maker is treated as having decided a person is over the age of 18 by virtue of regulations under Clause 56.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(iii) at the appropriate place insert—““national” includes citizen;”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment modifies the amendments to section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in clause 57. The new amendment to section 80A inserts a definition of “national” which applies to references to a person who is a national of a State (in that section and section 80AA of that Act) so that citizens of that State are included. This is for consistency with the freestanding provision in the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove Albania from the list of “safe states” with reference to which asylum and human rights claims will be deemed inadmissible.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 128A is also being proposed by the JCHR. I thank my noble friend Lord Cashman for his support, although I am afraid he has had to leave.
The amendment seeks to remove Albania from the list of safe states with reference to which asylum and human rights claims will be deemed inadmissible. I was prompted to table this amendment following a meeting with a group of young Albanians, which was organised by the Migrant and Refugee Children’s Legal Unit, MiCLU, and the Shpresa Programme. I am grateful to them, and to Professor Helen Stalford, for the information they have provided. All the young people had sought asylum in the UK. Some had been accepted, and some were still awaiting determination of their claims.
The young people had two clear messages. The first related to how they are talked about and perceived, by politicians and the media in particular, which frames discussions about the rights of Albanians to enter and stay in the UK. The young people talked about how hurtful and injurious to their identity it was to be constantly talked about as criminals with no right to be here.
One young Albanian asylum seeker quoted in the MiCLU briefing talked about having experienced racism:
“When you say you are from Albania, people distance from you. People have said I am a criminal and other words. It becomes hard for people to engage in society. Even people who have status”.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I rise—when I get my papers in proper order—to support my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in her Amendment 128A. As she explained, the purpose of this amendment is to remove Albania from the list of safe states in new Section 80AA on page 59 of the Bill.
As I rise, I am looking at the clock at 5.40 am—or rather 1.40 am; happily, we have not got as bad as 5.40 am, and it is certainly better than 4.20 am. I do regret that we are having to debate these important matters so late in the night. My sympathy, first of all, goes to the Ministers: they have had to work so hard on this matter. My sympathy extends to all those friends of the Minister sitting behind him. They seem to have left him now, but earlier there were hordes of them here. But this has happened and it is all part of a purge to get this Bill through in the summer—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful for his sympathy. I am delighted to be here, but we would move forward a great deal faster if we had not had so many repetitious speeches.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
Well, my Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord thought my speech about sympathy was repetitious. I have not heard it yet today, and I give those words of sympathy with great sincerity.
The important thing is to look at the state of Albania. Albania was a communist state under a particularly vicious dictator, Hoxha, until the mid-1980s. Great steps have been made since then, and when the USSR broke its ranks many Albanians worked very hard in democracy. But things have not always gone right. For example, in 1997 the Government of Berisha, who was then the president of the country, collapsed in the wake of pyramid schemes and widespread corruption. More recently, in February last year the president was subject to impeachment proceedings which were stopped only by the Albanian constitutional court.
I mention that because in the number of years that I acted as an international arbitrator and conducted arbitrations arising out of activities in the former countries of the USSR, time and again one came across very serious corruption which led to feuds and sometimes to heinous blood feuds. Corruption is a matter of great concern, and one wonders exactly how the list of safe states was drawn up; in that list are other countries of similar background to Albania—Bulgaria and Romania to name two. One looks at the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act to see what the test is, according to that Act, for the Secretary of State to take their decision. In new Section 80AA(3) it says:
“The Secretary of State may add a State to the list only if satisfied that … there is in general in that State no serious risk of persecution of nationals of that State”.
How strictly has that been applied, if it has been applied at all?
As my noble friend Lady Lister said, there is a lot of evidence of significant and outstanding issues in Albania relating to corruption, trafficking, blood feuds, discrimination and violence against the LGBT community, and stigma and discrimination against ethnic Roma and Egyptian communities and so forth. There are real grounds to be concerned whether, on any definition, Albania is properly placed as a safe country. That view is supported in our own Home Office’s work in 2022 when the UK granted protection status to 700 Albanian nationals, including 60 unaccompanied children.
For all those reasons, I hope your Lordships will feel that they should be on the safe side and remove Albania from the list of safe states.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the proposition that Clause 57 should not stand part of the Bill. Before I do, let me say that there are various myths arising around this Bill, one of which is that the Government are going to deport vast numbers of people, and another is that speeches from this side of the Committee are repetitious. I think it is regrettable that that sort of claim is being made. I referred at the beginning of proceedings today to the fact that this Bill got almost no scrutiny in the other place. As Dr Hannah White, the director of the Institute for Government, said last night on the radio, it has just come to expect that we will do that job.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say to many of the questions raised. We will then consider what to do between now and Report.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
The measures in Clause 57 aim to deter claims from nationals from safe countries who seek to abuse our asylum system and do not need to seek protection in the UK. It will consequently reduce pressure on our asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of our protection.
Treating asylum claims from EU nationals in this way is not new, as I think all noble Lords recognised. It has been a long-standing process in the UK asylum system and is also employed by EU states. However, EU states are not the only safe countries. It is right that we expand these provisions so that they apply not only to nationals of the EU but to other safe countries that we have assessed as generally safe. At this time, the list has been expanded to include the other European Economic Area countries, Switzerland and Albania. This clause also includes powers that would allow us to expand this list further to other safe countries of origin in future.
Furthermore, these provisions will expand this approach to include human rights claims. If a country is generally safe, it stands to reason not only that asylum claims should be declared inadmissible but that any related human rights claims should be treated likewise. If a person has other reasons for wishing to come to the UK, they should apply through the appropriate routes. People should not seek to use our asylum system to circumnavigate those routes.
However, even if a country is generally considered safe, it is acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to return an individual. If the person does not meet the conditions of the duty and makes an asylum or human rights claim, and there are exceptional circumstances as a result of which the Secretary of State considers that a claim ought to be considered, then their claims will be considered in the UK. If a person meets the conditions of the duty and makes a protection and human rights claim, and the Secretary of State accepts that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent removal to their country of origin, they will instead be removed to a safe third country. Therefore, it is considered that these provisions incorporate appropriate safeguards to ensure that we will not return an individual where it would not be safe to do so.
Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, seeks to remove Albania from the list of safe states for the purposes of Section 80A. For a country to be added to the list of safe countries of origin, it must be assessed as safe, as per the test set out in new Section 80AA of the 2002 Act. We are satisfied that, in general, Albania—a NATO member, an ECAT signatory and an EU accession country—meets that test. Indeed, the cross-party Home Affairs Committee, chaired by Dame Diana Johnson, said in its report published just yesterday:
“Albania is a safe country and we have seen little evidence that its citizens should ordinarily require asylum”.
Furthermore, as already set out, the provisions incorporate appropriate safeguards, should it be accepted that there are exceptional circumstances why an Albanian national should not be returned there.
As I have indicated, these sensible extensions to the inadmissibility arrangements which currently apply to EU nationals will help to reduce the pressures on our asylum system and enable us better to focus on those most in need of protection. I commend the clause to the Committee and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lord Hacking; he has been extremely noble to stay this late to speak, and he speaks from his first-hand experience of Albania.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that if there had not been so much repetition, we would not still be here at this time. However, the Minister, in his reply, has shown why sometimes there is repetition: because there is no evidence that the Minister listens. I talked about the Home Affairs Committee and why the response to it was not good enough, but he read his speech about the Home Affairs Committee as if it had not been mentioned. This happens time and time again. The main repetition I heard this evening was from the Government Benches giving very detailed information about the Policy Exchange report over and again. We could have done without that.
It is late, and I do not think that we want to go beyond 2 am, if we can possibly help it; I am shaking with tiredness. The Minister has not engaged at all with the arguments put that, while Albania may be a safe country for many people, it is not safe for everyone. It is just not good enough to say, “Well, in exceptional circumstances, their claims can be considered”. There are some very vulnerable people—people who have fled extremely difficult circumstances that none of us would want to face—who have sought asylum here and been granted asylum here for good reason. I sometimes wonder what the point is of us standing up saying these things, when the Minister then stands up and gives us a response that takes no account whatever of what has been said. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 14th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(6A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (1) specifying any limit on the number of persons who arrive under the following schemes—(a) the Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme,(b) the Ukraine Family Scheme,(c) the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy, and(d) the Hong Kong British National (Overseas) routes.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude the schemes for those displaced from Ukraine, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) and the Hong Kong BN(O) routes from the safe and legal routes cap. None of these schemes are currently capped.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests with the RAMP project and as a trustee of Reset, as laid out in the register. In moving Amendment 128B, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for their support, which, in itself, I hope demonstrates that this whole business of safe and legal routes is a matter about which there is common mind across the House and that we all agree that we need safe and legal routes. I am therefore looking forward to the next couple of hours—as I anticipate it might be—as we explore these issues, because this is really a debate about what is the best, how and when.
This amendment is a straightforward and well-intentioned addition to ensure that any cap placed on safe and legal routes excludes current named schemes already in operation. I hope, therefore, that it is a simple amendment that the Government will be able to accept to help provide clarity. Before I explain the rationale behind the amendment, I should like to comment on the importance of safe and legal routes. Since the pandemic, and following the end of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, I have despaired as I have witnessed the breakdown of our contribution to global efforts to support refugees to find sanctuary. I believe that the strength of shared opinion across different sides of this Chamber on the need for safe and legal routes is, in part, due to the global reputation we once held on resettlement. Central government led with great conviction and leadership in supporting communities up and down the breadth of this country to welcome over 20,000 Syrians who could then start to rebuild their lives. However, we now find ourselves in the absurd position that in order to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the UK irregularly, we are being asked to sanction the possibility that the Government will deliberately break international law to ban the right of men, women and children to claim asylum on arrival—and this is while providing no alternatives for vulnerable people to travel here safely.
In the absence of safe and legal routes, families are left with the impossible choice to travel informally to claim sanctuary in the UK and are thus at the mercy of smugglers taking criminal advantage. We often forget that, to claim asylum in the UK, a person has to be physically present here but, for those most likely to be in need of protection, there is no visa available for this and there are no UK consulates on European soil to claim asylum before making a dangerous journey. The UNHCR has also needed to reiterate—following government comments to the contrary—that there is no mechanism through which refugees can simply approach the UNHCR itself to apply for asylum in the UK.
The Government cannot deny that it is a choice to require refugees who wish to seek asylum here to rely on dangerous journeys if we do not provide safe alternatives. It is a difficult choice, but a choice it is. The Bill provides an opportunity to demonstrate real leadership and make a different choice.
Afghans, Iranians, Syrians, Eritreans and Sudanese are among those currently crossing the channel in higher numbers, making up over half the boat crossings in the first quarter of this year: 2,086, to be precise. Although all these countries have an asylum grant rate at initial decision of over 80%, only 146 people from those same countries were resettled. Taking one country as an example from 2022, we can see that 5,642 Iranians crossed the channel but only 10 were resettled here:10 out of 5,642. Let us not forget the most vulnerable group—children—who attempt to reach safety. Between 2010 and 2020, over 12,000 unaccompanied children were granted protection in the UK, but only 700 of those were able to arrive through official schemes. How many children could have been spared the trauma of a dangerous journey with better safe and legal routes?
I find the situation perverse, and I think we can, and must, do better. Yet currently the Bill does not propose any new protection pathways to help change this; in fact, it proposes a cap on such schemes and does not place any obligation on the Government to facilitate any such safe routes, preferring simply to consult local authorities. It is also important to note that every safe route will disrupt the smugglers’ ability to continue to capitalise on human misery. I therefore fully support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which would place a duty on the Home Secretary to specify additional safe and legal routes. The Prime Minister has promised that the Government will create more safe and legal routes. Although these would not dispense with the need for a functioning system of territorial asylum, I will take him at face value, otherwise the intention behind the Bill would appear needlessly pernicious and unjustly punitive.
Last year, resettlement figures decreased by 39% and family reunion decreased by 23%. Amendment 128C appears simply to provide the opportunity for the Government to turn this decline around by placing the Prime Minister’s welcome commitment in the Bill. I appreciate the unprecedented magnitude of forced displacement across the globe. The latest figure, from yesterday, says that there are 10 million more, so it is now 110 million. Therefore, any long-term strategy for safe and legal routes must be formulated collaboratively with our international partners and wider refugee organisations, rather than simply in a Home Office vacuum. Protection routes must be informed by the refugee experience and explore innovative and sustainable solutions with human dignity at their hearts. I know that the most revered Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury will share further on this in later groupings.
I will leave others to expand more fully on the safe and sanctioned routes that could be explored, although I note that, on previous occasions, I have spoken in favour of all three outlined in the amendments in this group. I expect the Government to bring forth details on the potential expansion of family reunion, including the ability of refugee children to be joined by their closest family members, and refugee visas, which would grant people permission to travel to the UK to claim asylum. There is also the potential capacity to welcome more people through community sponsorship, which would not necessarily be captured by a consultative cap with local councils.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 128C in my name, I shall also lend support to many of the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 128B in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which he has just outlined and to which I have added my name.
Amendment 128C is very simple. It places a duty on the Government to do what they say they want to do and are going to do anyway. This amendment imposes a duty on the Home Secretary to create additional—I emphasise “additional”—safe and legal routes by 31 January 2024, six months after the anticipated passage of the Bill, under which refugees and others in need of international protection may come to the UK lawfully from abroad.
The whole purpose of the Illegal Migration Bill is to shut down unsafe and illegal routes and its whole narrative is to ensure that genuine asylum seekers and refugees can then come via safe and legal routes. If that is the motive for the Bill, as the Government have repeatedly communicated, this amendment will not be difficult for the Minister to accept.
I have been asked why I believe it necessary to establish a duty on the Government to create these routes: why is it not enough for the Government just to be required to lay before Parliament a report detailing the safe and legal routes that they intend to introduce? There are pages of the Bill weighted towards eliminating illegal and unsafe routes, but only a few sentences indicating an intention to create legal and safe routes—and then only to lay a report before Parliament detailing the Government’s intention to create safe and legal routes.
This is simply not certain enough. If the Government are genuinely seeking to establish safe and legal routes, they would do so with the same weight of legislation as is committed to the abolishing of unsafe and illegal routes. I have the greatest respect for the character and integrity of my noble friend the Minister but, with the all the best will in the world, many assurances have been given and many reports written that have never delivered on the well-meaning and well-intentioned promises of Ministers. For this House to be certain that the abolishing of unsafe and illegal routes will genuinely lead to the creation of safe and legal routes, a legal duty set out in the Bill is what is required to balance the Bill and make good on the Government’s intent.
When announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary told the other place:
“Having safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, is the right way to support people seeking refuge in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/23; col. 170.]
This amendment would simply create a duty to have these safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, as the Home Secretary so eloquently laid out. Indeed, in December the Prime Minister announced that through the Illegal Migration Bill:
“The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes”,
and he indicated that that would be through the Illegal Migration Bill. He promised that
“as we get a grip on illegal migration, we will create more of those routes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/22; col. 888.]
The Government assure us that the Bill will swiftly get a grip on illegal migration so this amendment provides assurance that the Government will deliver on the Prime Minister’s stated intent of creating, through the Bill, safe and legal routes. Vague promises for establishing safe and legal routes towards the end of 2024 or commitments to establish safe routes after we have stopped the boats are not sufficient. A duty is required in the Bill that the Home Secretary must, by 31 January 2024, make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. Amendment 130 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Kerr and Lord Dubs, to whom I am very grateful for their support.
First, I must apologise for inadvertently misleading your Lordships’ Committee in the early hours of Tuesday morning, when referring to age-assessment data from Full Fact, at col. 1805. Although, in the absence of transparent published data there remains a big question mark over the Immigration Minister’s claims about the percentage of adult males pretending to be children, and similar ministerial claims, the Full Fact data were not in fact comparable and had been misinterpreted by a journalist. Clearly, I should have checked my facts rather than relying on a newspaper report. I apologise for that.
The amendment provides for a visa scheme that would allow those with viable asylum claims who meet specified conditions to travel safely and legally to the UK to make such claims. Before providing a more detailed explanation, I emphasise that the proposal is based on the premise that unites us, so clearly articulated by the right reverend Prelate: a desire to stop unsafe travel to the UK, be it by boat or other routes, such as hidden unsafely in a lorry. As such, it would damage significantly the people smugglers’ business model—again, a goal that unites us. Where we differ from the Government is in our belief that the way to do this is not by, in effect, ending the right to claim asylum in the UK. There is a clear distinction between deterring people from making dangerous journeys and stopping them claiming asylum.
Of course, safe and legal routes are part of the answer, and here I support in particular Amendment 128B, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 128C. Personally, I am unhappy with the idea of a fixed cap on the numbers entitled to enter on safe and legal routes if it is what the JCHR describes as a “hard” cap. The right reverend Prelate makes an important point in excluding the listed schemes from the cap, on the grounds that these schemes are not currently capped. I also support the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation that children should be excluded from the cap. I would be grateful to know the Government’s response to that. It should also be noted that she emphasises that
“safe and legal routes must be agreed in parallel to the passage of the Bill”,
which is relevant to Amendment 128C.
But however generous the safe and legal routes option is, the UNHCR makes it clear that it is not a substitute for the right to claim asylum under the refugee convention. As my honourable friend Olivia Blake said when she spoke to a similar amendment in the Commons,
“as it stands … there is no way for the many thousands of people who have already started their journey to get on to a safe and legal route … You cannot reduce the number of boats if the people who are going to try to make that journey are already on their journey and have no alternatives to come to the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/23; col. 754.]
This proposal offers a means of reducing significantly the numbers arriving by boat or other irregular and unsafe means. It does so by retaining the right to claim asylum, but in a way that, in effect, opens up another safe and legal route. I thank Care4Calais and the PCSU —two organisations working on the front line—for all the work they have put into it. When a similar amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Minister did not grace it with a response, so we are giving the Government an opportunity to do so today.
The proposal builds on the Ukraine model of safe passage, for which, for all its difficulties, the Government can take credit. I hope that they will learn and apply lessons to other groups with a strong case. It is no coincidence that no Ukrainian has, to my knowledge, crossed on a small boat or used people smugglers. Where the proposal differs from the Ukrainian scheme is that, on arrival in the UK, applicants holding a safe passage visa would enter the normal UK asylum process —speeded up considerably, I hope—and if, at that stage, they were found not to be eligible for asylum, they would not be allowed to stay in the UK.
A safe passage visa would typically be claimed online, as in the Ukrainian scheme, although provision would be made for applications also to be made at existing visa centres. I am assured that NGOs would undoubtedly help those with literacy problems. To qualify for a safe passage visa, a person would have to be in the EU—although, if successful, it could be expanded at a later date—not be a national of the EU, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland, and have a viable asylum claim. The viability of the claim would be determined in a similar way to the initial screening interview that currently takes place at the first step in the asylum process in the UK. This would ensure that clearly unfounded claims would be turned down at this point. Successful applicants would be sent an electronic letter that they could use to enter the UK lawfully. On arrival, they would be required to visit a UK centre to provide biometric data.
An initial fear that I had was that well-founded claims might be turned down as a way of reducing the numbers entering the UK, and that, although legal aid would be available on appeal, an applicant not in the country would clearly be at a disadvantage. The point was made to me, however, that the scheme relies on it being applied in good faith. It will work only if it is seen to work fairly—if claims are processed in a timely manner and a realistic number receive visas. If the Government are genuine in their claim that their primary motivation with the Bill is to stop unsafe journeys on flimsy boats, they have a real incentive to make it work.
I know, too, that some fear that this represents an open-borders policy, so I emphasise that it does not. The reverse is the case: it offers a way of replacing the current chaos in the channel—the Government’s attempts to regulate that have failed—with managed and controlled borders, where we know who is making the crossing. As I said, safe passage visas would be available only to those with viable asylum claims. Those refused a visa would receive a clear personal communication explaining that they do not have a viable claim, nor, therefore, the chance of a safe future in the UK were they to try to reach it by irregular means. Surely that would be a more effective deterrent, consistent with our international obligations, than the Bill—the deterrent effect of which is at best uncertain.
Nor does the evidence support the fear that this would attract more asylum seekers to the UK. Research suggests that immigration policies do not drive asylum seekers’ destinations. The introduction of the Ukrainian scheme, on which the safe visa scheme is modelled, did not lead to the great majority of those fleeing Ukraine seeking refuge in the UK. We know that the great majority of those seeking asylum in Europe do so in other European countries and there is no evidence to suggest that they will not continue to do so.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 128C, and I again declare my former role as an Immigration Minister in this country. I cannot really see, and I hope I am right, that my noble friend the Minister, or indeed the Government, could refuse to accept this amendment, which seems to be completely in line, as my noble friend Lady Stroud said a few minutes ago, with the declared policies and positions of the Government.
However, I want to clarify with my noble friend the whole question of definitions because I think there is a muddle here, as there has been in a number of interpretations by the Government, about what precisely is meant by a safe and legal route. They seem sometimes to be declaring that these include programmes that are organised by others, such as the United Nations. I was responsible for the 1996 United Nations Bosnian resettlement programme. A very important part of the work of this country is working with international agencies and, indeed, in specific cases, funding special programmes so that we can accommodate those who need to flee areas of repression or aggression. I think that is really a good thing for this country, and I hope that we will always take that approach, but that is not the same as providing facilities in wider parts of the world, where perhaps there is not a well-known conflict going on, but where nevertheless there are individuals who meet the criteria of the 1951 refugee convention but have no way to claim asylum in this country.
I just want to go back, if I may, for a moment or two to the history of how we used to deal with this. I am sure noble Lords will know that before 2011 or thereabouts—my noble friend the Minister will clarify—applications could be made through United Kingdom embassies and consulates in other parts of the world.
Indeed, we have been talking about specifying safe and legal routes. I would argue against that to some extent because if we are going to specify on a discriminatory basis certain places where these routes might be opened, we are falling into the same trap that I have just explained. Programmes may well be available through the United Nations or others and therefore if we are going to introduce these routes, they ought to be introduced widely.
The International Journal of Refugee Law from 2004 gives some of the history here. It says that in early 2002 six European states formally accepted asylum applications or visa applications on asylum-related grounds at their embassies. They were Austria, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom. It seems to me that things have changed. When we got to 2011 there was a statement—I do not know whether it was made or printed or referred to. It said:
“As a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UK fully considers all asylum applications lodged in the UK. However, the UK’s international obligations under the Convention do not extend to the consideration of asylum applications lodged abroad and there is no provision in our Immigration Rules for someone abroad to be given permission to travel to the UK to seek asylum. The policy guidance on the discretionary referral to the UK Border Agency of applications for asylum by individuals in a third country who have not been recognised as refugees by another country or by the UNHCR under its mandate, has been withdrawn”.
That evidence is quite interesting because at some point—and again my noble friend will have it all available to tell us—we made a clear decision to reverse what had been practice for many years. Certainly, when I was the Minister, it was the practice that we had the ability in our embassies and consulates—people who had the discretion to be able to consider at first instance an asylum application. I recommend strongly to my noble friend that we reintroduce this, if for no other reason than to comply with the clear statements the Government have made that we can avoid the arguments and stop those boats by having a process that has a safe and legal route.
Finally, I think I am not alone in this because a number of my honourable friends in the other place have referred to it. I refer particularly to David Simmonds MP, who said:
“We must also not be afraid to look at and explore innovative solutions. For example, we could give asylum seekers the chance to have their applications processed in British Embassies around the world”—
he goes on and I do not quite agree with his last bit—
“or perhaps online”.
As far as I am concerned, to meet the terms of the convention it is important that these things are done on a face-to-face and personal basis. Online does not appeal here, although I am sure the technology is being pressed on us. I certainly would not suggest for one moment that we introduce AI in such decisions. My honourable friend Pauline Latham has also spoken of her support for the processing of asylum claims in British embassies.
I know this is a complex Bill and I have not spoken in Committee before. I believe very strongly, however, that there are solutions here which would satisfy the determination of the Government—and of us all—to stop the suffering of people who cross the channel in those boats. Let us be pragmatic and sensible about it and let us use the resources we have available and are wasting in so many other ways on these matters. Let us use them and focus our attention on providing those safe and legal routes at the very places around the world where the United Kingdom has presence and representation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord and his very interesting contribution. In many respects, it was a very persuasive argument and, I believe, a very persuasive preparatory argument for Amendment 131 in my name, supported by my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. It seeks to at least present a mechanism by which we would be able to realise the case that the noble Lord has made. On Amendment 128C, I have a slight concern with the way in which the Government may get around it, which I will address in a moment. At the outset I reiterate an interest that I have, in that I am currently deeply involved in working with civilian groups within Sudan and have supported an anti-trafficking project in the Horn of Africa through to the Gulf.
I am very happy to support Amendment 128B and the way in which the right reverend Prelate opened this debate so clearly today, making the case, which I believe is unanswerable, that the current schemes should not be included within any hard cap mechanism. In debates, many of my noble friends and colleagues around the House have raised the difficulties in getting some of these schemes up and running and, as the right reverend Prelate indicated, the limited scope of some of them. It would have been a tragic loss for many people if we had wrapped up these schemes in a hard cap, because Clause 58, which I argue should not be in the Bill, leaves enormous discretion for the Government. As the Refugee Council indicated, the Government could establish a cap of, say, 10,000 people and would comply with it if just 10 entered. Even a cap, an upper limit, is not a commitment to provide support and refuge for the individuals within that overall cap number.
Amendment 131 is very much designed to be a brake against smuggling and trafficking. It is meant to remove incentives for crime and is, in addition, an effective means of allowing access to apply for the very kind of support that has been called for so far in the debate. On that basis, I also commend my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who made arguments for this in debates on the Nationality and Borders Bill last year. The Government accept the case for a non country-specific emergency scheme for people who qualify for asylum in the UK. However, not only have they accepted the case but they have also, I believe, sought to misrepresent the situation and suggest that it is available already in many instances.
My first question for the Minister is that if it is the Government’s position that they will consider new routes once the boats have stopped, at what level of crossings over the channel will the Government consider that the boats have stopped? Is it in their entirety or do the Government have an indicative level under which they would then trigger the mechanism they have indicated, which is to consider new safe and legal routes? Given that, as my noble friend Lord Scriven has pointed out on many occasions, this is an issue not simply about cross-channel crossings but about road access, rail access and misuse of papers, what is the level of this being stopped before which the Government will indicate new safe and legal routes?
I indicated earlier that the Government seek to misrepresent the situation. On the morning of 26 April, the Home Secretary said to Sky News:
“If you are someone who is fleeing Sudan for humanitarian reasons, there are various mechanisms you can use. The UNHCR is present in the region and they are the right mechanism by which people should apply if they do want to seek asylum in the United Kingdom”.
On the same day, in the House of Commons, the Minister, Robert Jenrick, said:
“The best advice clearly would be for individuals to present to the UNHCR. The UK, like many countries, works closely with the UNHCR and we already operate safe and legal routes in partnership with it. That safe and legal route is available today”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 774.]
Clearly, that was awful advice because, on the same day, the UNHCR issued a statement:
“UNHCR is aware of recent public statements suggesting that refugees wishing to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom should do so via the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ respective offices in their home region. UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the UK”.
The Government seemed to accept that because, in the evening, Foreign Office Minister Andrew Mitchell was on Sky News, and he was asked for clarification on what safe and legal routes a Sudanese person could use to claim asylum in the UK. He said:
“Well, at the moment those safe and legal routes don’t exist”.
So after what was said in the Commons and on Sky News in the morning, after clarification in the afternoon it was clear by the evening that safe and legal routes do not exist. This is the political environment in which we are having to seek clarity from the Minister today with regard to the Government’s position.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 128B, 128C and 131, which all deal with an issue which is crucial to any overall approach by this country to remake its broken asylum policy. Without that, you do not have an overall approach; you just have a piece-by-piece approach. All that was spelled out during the debate tabled by the most reverend Primate in December last year, and many Members of the House spoke in support of these safe and legal routes as one part of an overall solution. That is what I am doing today by supporting these amendments. At the time, the Minister who replied to that debate did not respond on the point of safe and legal routes, nor did the Government respond in the legislation we are discussing today, which they tabled quite soon after that debate. That was a pity: it was an opportunity missed.
Now, in the course of the proceedings in another place, the Government have put in the Bill some language about safe and legal routes. I welcome that—it is a shift of policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said, back to policy which we practised before 2011—but I am sorry to say that the drafting currently in the Bill is really quite inadequate, not only because of the cap, which is arbitrary and is liable to frustrate the objective being pursued, but because actually there is no obligation on the Government, if the Bill passes in its current form, with some reference to safe and legal routes, to arrive at the implementation of such safe and legal routes. Amendments 128B, 128C and 131 are all aimed to arrive at that point: where there is an obligation on the Government. The Bill imposes a lot of obligations on the Government, many of which I and others in this House have said are contrary to our international obligations. This would be in total conformity to our international obligations, and I therefore argue that it needs to be mandatory now, not awaiting some mythical moment when the last boat has been stopped. That is not going to work; it is simply not going to happen. The wording in the Bill at the moment leaves enormous opportunities for a Government who do not wish to proceed to give effect to safe and legal routes to escape. That is why I support the amendments.
I hope that the Minister will finally lay to rest the argument that the UNHCR can do all this on our behalf. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has said—and others have said—reading out the text that the UNHCR has issued, that is simply not the case. I hope also that the Minister will feel able on this occasion to answer the question that has been put so many times and which I now put again: what safe and legal route exists for an Iranian woman fleeing for her life from the persecution of an extremely unpleasant regime that has hanged quite a lot of people and persecuted many others? What safe and legal route does this Iranian woman have to apply for asylum in this country? I believe myself that the answer is a very short, one-word answer: none. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he disagrees with that. If he does disagree, I would be delighted. Perhaps he would then, on the public record, show us what such a woman could do to achieve a safe and legal application, which is what she deserves.
My final point is that this all fits with our relationship with the other countries of Europe, which are also struggling to shape their migration policy to make it more apt for the circumstances of today. They are at the point of agreeing a new set of migration policies. Everyone who has looked at this—and I think the Home Office believes this too, because that is why the Interior Minister of France is in this country today, talking to the Home Secretary—acknowledges that the only way that we are going to get to grips with this is if we are able to work together right across the board. Whether it is on prevention, police work, intelligence or handling the scale of the problem, we need to work together with other European countries. That is, after all, where all these asylum seekers come from when they come illegally and where some of them would come from if we made it possible for them to come legally. At the heart of getting an effective policy is the need to have one where we can work 100% hand-in-hand with the other European countries. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to this really rather crucial set of amendments, can give us a full-scale response to these wider issues. I am sorry if it is thought at some stage that some parts of this debate have been repetitious. This is not repetitious; it is necessary.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 128C in the names of my noble friends Lady Stroud, Lord Kirkhope and Lady Mobarik. The very first clause of the Bill states that its purpose is to,
“prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
This amendment seeks to support that aim by requiring the Secretary of State to set out additional safe and legal routes in keeping with the Prime Minister’s ambition, as stated in the House of Commons last December, to “create more” safe and legal routes. The amendment leaves significant discretion for the Secretary of State to determine the size and scope of these routes, and I hope that the Government will recognise that. It complements the existing clauses of the Bill that require the Secretary of State to report on what routes exist. I believe it is entirely in line with the Government’s own aims and ambitions for this Bill.
In particular, the amendment addresses one of the key pressures that drives unsafe and illegal migration: the fact that, for the vast majority of refugees and asylum seekers, there are no routes deemed safe and legal by the Government. As it stands, there are routes, as others have said, for Ukrainians, for the British nationals (overseas) from Hong Kong, for select Afghans, and for a few—a very few—under UNHCR resettlement, though there is no guarantee of being sent to the United Kingdom under resettlement. For many people in desperate circumstances, there is simply no safe and legal route available for claiming asylum in the United Kingdom; yet there will always be people forced from their homes who want to seek safety—and, in particular, safety in the United Kingdom, perhaps because of family or historical ties, or perhaps because of their admiration for this country, something that we ought to be proud of. We should also recognise our obligation under the refugee convention to allow people to claim asylum in the United Kingdom. The question is whether we provide a safe method where we can carefully monitor—and indeed, as per the Bill, control—the numbers coming, or whether we criminalise everything and everyone, force everything underground and push people into unsafe routes.
There are more refugees and displaced persons around the world than ever before. The number has doubled in the past decade. Only a very small proportion of them seek to come to the United Kingdom. However, this is a global crisis that is likely to get worse rather than better. Climate change risks driving millions of new displacements. This is not something that one country can hope to solve on its own. As it stands, three-quarters of refugees are hosted by low- and middle-income countries. If they start to follow the approach set out in our Bill, the Government really will have a migration crisis on their hands.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 129 on refugee family reunion. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Refugee family reunion does exist as a safe and legal route but it needs to be expanded. I was proud to steer a Private Member’s Bill on that subject; it passed through this House and is currently in the other place. I picked up the baton from my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has worked on this issue for many years.
The problem at the moment is not only that the safe routes available to refugees are extremely limited; last year, refugee settlement provided in collaboration with the UNHCR decreased by 39% and the issuing of refugee family reunion visas decreased by nearly a quarter—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to this. In the year ending March 2022, 6,000 family reunion visas were issued. In the year ending March 2023, there were only 4,600—a reduction of 23%. The Bill misses an opportunity for the UK to curb the number of irregular arrivals by creating more routes to safety and—I would like it to fulfil this opportunity—to allow more family members to join those who have reached safety in this country, including by letting separated refugee children be joined by their closest family members.
Last year, the Nationality and Borders Act restricted access to family reunion for refugees arriving in the UK irregularly. Of course, it has failed to replace the Dublin regulations since we left the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the hole that exists for international co-operation; we might refer to that later today. Although those restrictions from last year’s Act are beginning to take effect only now, preliminary research from Refugee Legal Support has already found evidence of children who would previously have been eligible for reunification being stranded in Europe and crossing the channel dangerously.
Australia provides an example of the longer-term impact of this sort of restriction. In 2014, Australia reintroduced temporary protection visas—which do not confer family reunion rights—and has seen an increase in the number of women and children arriving via dangerous journeys. We should remember that 90% of those arriving on family reunion visas in this country are women and children. I am sure I do not need to convince noble Lords of the importance of family reunion for refugees’ integration into their new communities. Surely that should be our aim. If we have allowed people the legal right to settle here, and in some cases be on a path to citizenship, surely we should want to do anything that fosters integration and the physical, emotional and psychological adjustment of people.
Refugees separated from their families can, understandably, experience serious mental health difficulties, compounding the trauma that they have already experienced. This means that they are less able to focus on activities which are essential to integration, such as learning English, building new relationships in the community, and working, which is another topic that we will talk about today. In the other place, the Conservative MP Tim Loughton tabled a new clause seeking to expand eligibility for refugee family reunion, and I applaud him for that. It did not get pushed to a vote.
The problem is that current family reunion entitlements are too restrictive. I have mentioned that refugee children are not allowed to sponsor family members within the Immigration Rules, and we have also had the creation of those bespoke pathways, such as the Afghan route, which do not confer protection status, meaning that some resettled people in the UK have no eligibility for refugee family reunion because they do not have the necessary status to sponsor family. All those with protection needs must have access to refugee family reunion. This pathway should be expanded to allow children to sponsor their parents and siblings and adult refugees to sponsor parents who are dependent on them.
We referred on Monday to the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, announcing on 8 June that the differentiation policy, which under last year’s Act decides whether someone is a group 1 or group 2 refugee, would be paused, and that those previously given group 2 status would have their entitlements increased. However, the announcement says only that the policy will be paused. The power to differentiate will still be on the statute book. Can the Minister explain exactly where that leaves us, and the Government’s intention on how to go forward on this? Will they bring forward an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Act to delete group 2 refugees?
This Bill does not deal directly with refugee family reunion, and my amendment is designed to fill that hole. However, the Bill would dramatically reduce the number of people eligible for this route, as we have discussed, because it makes asylum applications from people who travel irregularly permanently inadmissible. They would never be granted protection status and would therefore never be able to sponsor family members. I propose expanding the Immigration Rules to allow refugee children to sponsor parents and siblings, refugees to sponsor their dependent parents, and Afghans settled via pathways 1 and 3 of the ACRS to be able to act as sponsors for the purposes of refugee family reunion.
I am afraid to say that research from the Refugee Council and Oxfam has found evidence of refugees turning to smugglers after realising that there were no legal routes available to bring their loved ones to join them. A lack of access to family reunification does appear to be a key driver of dangerous journeys. As many as half of those seeking to cross the channel from northern France have family links to the UK.
Finally, our Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, published a report in February called All Families Matter: An Inquiry into Family Migration. One of its recommendations was:
“The Government should harmonise which relatives are, or are not, eligible for entry and stay across”
various
“immigration pathways and the Government should be transparent about the reasons for any differences”,
because there is variation in the definition of a family.
I am afraid that the Government’s response had me rather puzzled; it appears to be a bit circular. They say:
“We do not think it is … right … to fully harmonise the conditions … There are clear differences between immigration routes relating to family members. Given the broad and diverse offer for family members across the immigration system, it is right that requirements vary according to the nature and purpose of their stay in the UK”.
I felt that that was a bit circular or tautological—I am not sure which is the right description. They say that, because it varies at the moment, it is right that we carry on with the variations. I do not think that any reasons or explanation were given; it was just stating why we go all round the houses.
I urge support for Amendment 129 and suggest that it is an extremely valuable part of the provisions on safe and legal routes; it is a subset, if you like, of everything we are debating this morning. The problem is that the current provisions are far from being sensibly expanded to the benefit of the families—the settled refugees and their families—and our society as a whole. One thing that we often hear from the Conservative Party is that it is party of the family. Many of us would dispute that; but if it is, it should support not only the maintenance but the expansion of refugee family reunion, which is currently going in the wrong direction.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 130 and 131, but I speak in support of all the amendments in this group.
There have been some very good and persuasive speeches, but I refer particularly—and I am sure that others will understand why—to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Why? For more than one reason. First, the noble Lord was the Immigration Minister at a time of particular attrition in Bosnia, as he referred to, and he has a great deal of knowledge on that matter. Secondly, he has had the courage to make his speech from the Conservative Back Benches in your Lordships’ House, and I particularly look forward to the Minister dealing, line by line as it were, with every point made by the noble Lord.
Thirdly, my belief is that, somehow or other, the Bill is a visceral part of the attempt to win votes beyond the red wall. However, the Government only have to look at the noble Lord’s history to find somebody who has within his blood and bones the red wall: he cut his teeth in the north-east of England; he represented part of another great city in the north-east of England; and he represented his party in Europe, on behalf of areas beyond the red wall. So, if the Government are listening to those whom they are aspiring to gain votes from, perhaps he, above all, is the person they should be listening to at the moment. I hope he will forgive me, because praise from me may not be altogether familiar or welcome.
I hope that everybody in this House wants to stop the boats. My question is: do we want to stop the boats by means within international law and treaties, or by means that are in breach of those international laws and treaties that we have signed? As I pointed out in a debate I think the day before yesterday—although it might just have been early yesterday—the Home Office website, at least when I was speaking very early yesterday morning, still had on its immigration pages inferences that we have to obey international law on immigration and asylum.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, mentioned the Bosnian scheme, because at the time I was at the Refugee Council, which was instrumental, along with the Red Cross and others, in facilitating reception centres for the Bosnians. I remember being at Stansted Airport when they arrived, and most of the world’s media were there to see the spectacle of these people who had come from most appalling concentration camp-like conditions. It was a really good scheme and it did not seem to arouse a lot of public opposition. We need to think of that scheme in relation to the amendments we are discussing: the way it was handled suggests that there are ways we can get public opinion on our side, provided we explain carefully what it is we are about and what we seek to do.
To digress slightly, one of the reception centres was in Newcastle. One of the things we did to get public support was arrange an open day near the reception centre for local people—councillors, MPs, teachers, the police, voluntary organisations, you name it. That meant that they had a chance to meet the Bosnians very soon after arrival and that a willingness and friendship was created right from the beginning. I hold that up as a model for the Government. Maybe the noble Lord could start advising the Home Office again—I would not want that fate for him, but anyway, maybe he could do that.
I also very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said; we can develop that a bit further when we come to a later amendment from the most reverend Primate on international agreements. If we are to have effective safe and legal routes—I keep saying that, despite the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that we would not—for people to come, it is clear that they need some international underpinning.
We do not advocate an open-door policy. Some Conservatives who should know better keep saying that the Labour Party wants an open-door policy. Although I do not speak for the party but for myself as a Back-Bencher, we do not advocate that. We advocate a policy that it should be selective, based on need and on co-operation with other countries, so that we can take our share of the responsibility. My noble friend Lady Lister talked very clearly about Amendment 130, which is one model for developing a safe and legal way of doing this.
Some of us have been to Calais and the Greek islands, and to other refugee camps or what remains of them. I used to ask people there, “What are you going to do?” They used to reply that they were going to jump on the back of a lorry on the motorway near Calais. It has now become boats, but the motive is the same. I used to say to them, and would like to be able to say to them in the future, “Don’t do it—there is a way that you can come to the UK safely and legally, without paying money to the people traffickers. You’ll be received well when you get to the UK. That is the way forward”. I would like to say to people in Calais or the Greek islands that there is a better way of doing it. I very much hope that this pack of amendments, all of which are interesting and which I support, will at least result in the Home Office moving sensibly in this direction.
It is not much to ask for. We used to have safe and legal routes; we had one for the Bosnians and we had one for children who were in Europe under an amendment I moved. It is possible to do this, and with public support. Surely that is the challenge. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Amendment 128B, in particular the reference to removing BNO nationals from the safe and legal routes. I do so because the Government’s own document on safe and legal routes, in its description of Hong Kong British national (overseas) visas, says that the scheme
“was developed following concerns about erosion of human rights protections in Hong Kong, but it is not an explicitly protection-based scheme. Eligibility is not based on the person’s risk of persecution in Hong Kong. Rather, it is a way of making it easier for Hong Kong BN(O) status holders to migrate to the UK compared to the general work, study, and family visa rules”.
As we discussed on Monday night—I will not rehearse those points again—BNO holders of course have rights under the British Nationality Act 1981, in that they can arrive and move to settlement without having to seek the discretion of the Home Secretary to make them a British citizen; it comes with the package of holding a BNO status. That then means that they and their dependants, after they have been here for the right amount of time, can move straight to that status.
I ask the Minister this question because it relates not just to BNO holders. If the Government seriously want to propose caps to safe and legal routes, why is there one group in there which, under our British Nationality Act 1981, does not have to be capped? Any such capping would inevitably mean that people fleeing from other countries would have their numbers reduced in order to protect BNO status-holders, who also have rights and should be able to come here, given that most of the 144,000 who have arrived did so because they or their families are dissidents under the rule of the CCP in Hong Kong.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I suggest that we look at these issues, which have now been dealt with in great detail, in a wider context. The fact is that the asylum system is a shambles; I will not go into that any further—we all know that. However, we need to be very careful before we make further commitments on safe and legal routes.
The wider reason is that, last year, we had overall net migration of 606,000. Of those, roughly 200,000 were refugees of different kinds—I am putting it in the most general terms. If that is allowed to continue, and if we fail to reduce the other elements of immigration which are also rising very quickly under this Government, we will have to build something like 16 cities the size of Birmingham in the next 25 years. Nobody has challenged that, because it is a matter of arithmetic.
We face a huge problem. Therefore, I suggest that whatever the arguments for this particular category may be, we need to keep well in mind the wider impact on the scale and nature of our society. That should not be overlooked.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have my doubts about the term “safe and legal routes” as well. I would prefer to focus on safety; to talk about legal routes now impliedly accepts the argument that people who come here in the way that we have been discussing are in some way illegal. I do not think the routes are illegal any more than the people.
I did not know that my noble friend was going to refer to the recent report of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee on family migration, published in February. It raised a number of matters pertinent to the debate. Noble Lords will be familiar with the problem that one of our recommendations addresses. We recommended that the Home Office should allow biometrics to be completed on arrival in the UK for a wider range of nationalities in crisis situations. As noble Lords will know, there are many countries in which it is not possible to reach a visa application centre before travelling in order to enrol your biometrics. There are countries which do not have them. My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed said of the Government’s attitude to Iran and Sudan that they do not recognise the reality of the situation. In this connection, I do not think they recognise the realities either.
The reply from the Government arrived less than a week ago. I hope that this “in due course” is quite quick, and we will have the opportunity to debate it, but who knows? The Government said:
“Where an applicant considers they cannot travel to a Visa Application Centre … to enrol their biometrics, they can contact us to explain their circumstances”.
Well, that sounds practical, does it not? They continued:
“New guidance will be published in the near future setting out the unsafe journey policy. Where an applicant believes that travelling to a VAC would be unsafe, their request will be placed on hold pending the new guidance being published, however, should there be an urgent requirement to resolve their request this should be made clear in the request and consideration will be given as to the applicant’s circumstances and whether there is an urgent need to travel to the UK. If the request is deemed to be urgent we will contact the applicants to explain available options prior to the guidance being published”.
What a neat and tidy world the Home Office thinks exists.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I know this is not something I say very often, certainly not in the context of this debate, but the Government are to be commended for their welcome to Ukrainians and Hong Kongers, and a little less so for their slightly less warm welcome to Afghans.
Even more than commending the Government, I commend the British people who opened their homes and hearts to these desperate people. When we are making these generalisations about what our countrymen will or will not tolerate and what the will of the people is or is not, it is important to remember that. There is real value in allowing people to open their homes and hearts, rather than putting people on barges or in de facto prisons and so on. It is that separation that leads, in part, to the dehumanisation of these people who are coming to our shores in the most difficult times.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to deliver safe and legal routes and I support Amendments 128B and 128C, which help deliver that commitment.
There are numerous details and duties in the Bill on how illegal and unsafe routes will be stopped, but little on how safe and legal routes will be opened—so how and when? The number will be decided by the elected Parliament, but I would welcome clarity from my noble friend on whether country-specific, at House of Commons or listed schemes will be included, as I do not really understand how the system will work if that is the case. So I support Amendment 128B.
We have had various ideas about the mechanism, and a point has been made about the UNHCR resettlement scheme. Can my noble friend explain how the Government envisage that the scheme’s safe, legal and deliverable routes will work?
On timing, which I do not think has been mentioned before, the Minister has previously given verbal reassurance that these safe and legal routes will be opened by 2024. I think we all agree that they should be opened, but that does not really deliver the balance and the overall approach that is needed in the Bill. The plan is that, by the end of this year, the Bill will be law and the plans the Government have designed to stop the boats will be actioned. We are assured that the backlog is being dealt with, so safe and legal routes should be open by then, too.
The Minister has rightly highlighted the frustration that many people in this country feel about the unfairness of illegal immigration but, to make it fair, not only must we stop illegal and unsafe routes but we must open safe and legal ones. Amendment 128C does that.
The Bill is full of obligations and duties to stop the boats and to close illegal and unsafe routes. I hope the Government will agree to include the same obligations and duties to open safe and legal ones.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who raised some of the points on which I am going to focus about balance and the importance of all of this group. I offer Green support for all this group. In saying that, particularly looking at the exclusion of the Ukrainian, Afghan and Hong Kong BNO schemes, I should declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
That word “balance”, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is terribly important. There is a real reflection to be made. We often hear in your Lordships’ House great praise for the Act passed through this Chamber centuries ago on the abolition of slavery. Yet there is a great deal of concern about the fact that there was just one very short paragraph that addressed what would happen to the former slaves, and paragraphs and paragraphs addressing compensation for the slave owners. That has had a very long historical tail that still rebounds today. I suggest that the Bill as currently constructed, with its extreme focus on attempts at deterrence and at treating refugees—desperate people—really badly, has real echoes of that, and that the Committee might like to reflect upon those parallels.
We have had a lot of discussion about terminology. The term that I prefer and will try to always use for what we are talking about in this group is “safe and orderly routes” for people to reach refuge in the UK. There is no such thing as illegally seeking asylum, and no person is illegal. That really needs to be stressed.
I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, about our overseas development assistance and the way in which we are utterly twisting the classification as well as cutting the total sum in a way that will only produce more refugees, as well as more death and suffering around the world. In that context, I have to mention a briefing that I attended this morning from a brilliant organisation, the Global Antibiotic Research and Development Partnership—GARDP—which is working on sepsis in infants around the world and on drug-resistant sexually transmitted diseases. A comment was made that we put less money into that scheme than Germany does, despite our claims of world leadership in the pharmaceutical area. That is something to which some of our ODA money could, and should, be going.
I will focus in particular on Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who has already outlined it very powerfully. I was pleased to be able to attach my name to it—it was one of the few that had space. It is about refugee family reunion, and I have two reflections on this. I am sad that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is not currently in her place, because I will first reflect on the work of the Refugee Rights Hub at Sheffield Hallam University, which is part of the Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice. It has a scheme—a very innovative one, particularly following the cuts in legal aid to refugees, which were discussed earlier in Committee on a group when I am afraid I was not able to be present—in which 50 third- year undergraduate law students and two postgraduate interns work to help refugees already here to arrange family reunions. It is worth reading the accounts of those students and their experiences. They realise, “Wow, she is just like my sister”, or “Wow, he acts like my brother”. People who have heard lots of nasty things about refugees on social media, and in so much of the media bombardment we are subjected to, realise that they are doing something wonderful and amazing and how much they are enriching our whole society.
We really have not thought enough about the joy that a family reunion brings and the way in which it enriches our whole society. If a child comes and joins a school and brings all their experience and knowledge, or if an elderly parent comes—as proposed under this amendment—and a family is reunited, just think about how we are adding to the richness of our society and of the world. I do not think that we have talked about that very much.
I would love to stay hopeful but I cannot, so I will turn to the other side of this, which is the most recent report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration regarding the Home Office’s management of the current family reunion schemes. A report in 2019 said that there were serious problems and made recommendations for addressing them. Sadly, what we had from the report of what happened from June to September last year is that the performance of the family reunion scheme has in fact deteriorated. The chief inspector reported that the system is “beset with delays”, the team is “ill-equipped to manage”, there is a “backlog of … almost 8,000” cases and it routinely takes double the standard 60 days to manage an application for family reunion. There is no evidence of prioritisation based on vulnerability—it is very often the intervention of an MP that makes a difference—despite the commitment and hard work of the staff.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group. The issue of the millions displaced by war and persecution requires international co-operation, including the UK taking its fair share of genuine refugees. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, there are no safe, or deliverable, and legal routes for many, or most, genuine refugees. The Bill seeks to imprison and remove any genuine refugee who arrives in the UK other than by safe and legal routes that do not exist. We need humanitarian visas, as my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed has said.
Placing a cap on the numbers arriving by safe and legal routes at the whim of the Secretary of State is not acceptable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said. Any cap needs to be debated and set by Parliament. Rather than the Secretary of State being exempt from the need to consult if the number needs to be changed as a matter of urgency, it is exactly in times of emergency that we need debate and consultation.
In support of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, I say that if the UK secured a reputation for taking its fair share of genuine refugees, and had a widely publicised humanitarian visa scheme and a strong strategy for tackling people smugglers, an international agreement to address the global problem of those seeking sanctuary would be more likely to be negotiated. I ask the Minister to answer clearly in his response the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, about the situation facing young women fleeing Iran.
There was only one dissenting voice in the debate on this group, and that was from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, on the Cross Benches. The noble Lord knows that I have some sympathy for the views he expresses about the pressure on housing and other services caused by immigration but, as I have said previously, we are talking about desperate people fleeing war and persecution. The noble Lord talked about 606,000 being the net migration figure last year. The Government actually issued 1,370,000 visas to people to come and stay in the UK, and that is an issue that needs to be addressed. The people coming across the channel in boats, which is what the Bill is supposedly all about, are a tiny fraction of the numbers that this Government are allowing into this country.
Most of the time, it causes me real distress to hear about these sorts of policies and the direction the Conservative Government are taking this country in. Yet it is heartening to know that compassionate conservativism is not completely dead. To hear the support for these amendments from Back-Benchers on the Government side is truly heartening, and I am very grateful for their support.
On family reunion, surely children looked after by their parents will be less of a burden on the state than looked-after children, let alone the other benefits to the children involved and society generally. Hard-working refugees are more than capable of looking after dependent parents, similar to UK citizens in that situation. I support Amendment 129 particularly, as well as the other amendments in this group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, this has been another very important debate on the Bill, on safe and legal routes. We support much of what has been said and the majority of the amendments in this group, particularly the one moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I also mention Amendment 128C, which I thought was important, from the noble Baronesses, Lady Stroud, Lady Helic and Lady Mobarik, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope.
I want to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was saying. I thought that it was really important. I think his point was that there is a lot of intent but that it is important to see the obligations laid out, hence the importance of knowing when the Government will do certain things. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, also made that point. Can the Minister confirm when he expects this to be operating? If it is 2024—again, I am not being sarcastic—is the expectation that it will be towards the end of that year? Can the Minister give any indication of when we can expect the safe and legal routes to operate, however they and the cap are arrived at?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also made the point that this is part of the Government’s solution to the chaos in the system at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point well: it is broader than just small boats. It is about the asylum and refugee system that we think should operate.
During the debate, I was particularly struck when I reread the first part of Amendment 128C, on the duty to establish safe and legal routes. This is why I was referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay said. It says:
“The Secretary of State must, on or before 31 January 2024, make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes”,
to try to put some sort of timescale on what is taking place. The Government say in Clause 58 that they will make regulations after consulting and so on, but, unless my reading is wrong, there is no timescale. The addition of a timescale would help significantly, for the operation of the system and for all of us to understand what is going on.
Can I also, in the spirit of early afternoon on a Wednesday, make a suggestion? The Government can reflect on it or ignore it. Obviously, they are making regulations on something really significant and important. If I have read the Bill correctly, it will be done by the affirmative process, so the regulations will be put and debated. I wonder whether the Minister could confirm that it is affirmative—my reading is that it is.
One thing that sometimes happens and which Governments have done in the past—and given the importance of this legislation, and all the various reflections that will change the primary legislation, or not, as we finish this process—when something is of significant importance or contentious, as this may well prove to be, is to publish the regulations. Because the regulations cannot be amended, to at least ameliorate the impact of that, Governments sometimes publish them for comment well before they put them for approval. They put them in a draft form and make sure that everyone is aware of it, then ask people for comments well before they put them for approval. The Government would take a view as to whether or not they would like to change them, but that is one helpful way for them to take this forward. Will the Government consider that?
Will the Minister also confirm what the regulations under Clause 58(1) actually involve? Will it just be a figure, or will they say how that figure has been arrived at, mention all the countries that may be involved, and so on? It would be interesting for us to know exactly what those regulations would involve and include. On the regulations, which are everything with respect to much primary legislation, will the Minister comment on my suggestion about having draft regulations well in advance, before they are put for approval? Will he say whether they are affirmative, and a little bit more about what they would actually involve? There is also the point about timescale and the very good point made in proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 128C.
To move on to general points, in the Government’s safe and legal routes scheme as proposed, do they intend to have any sort of prioritisation, or will it be just on an individual case basis? I am interested whether the Government are going to talk about family reunion and high-grant countries and what their view is of any of that. How will the Government deal with the emergencies that may arise? I have read the clause, but could the Minister spell that out a little bit more? It has got slightly lost, so I also emphasise one of the points that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham made—the issue of children in all this, whether they are unaccompanied or not. We would be interested to hear what the Government have to say on that issue.
I have nothing much more to add to the many excellent points made by many noble Lords during this very important debate. I am really interested in the process with respect to the regulations, because in that will be everything. I am concerned that we do not just have a repeat of what has happened before, whereby the regulations are just put and there is no ability to debate or amend them. Any regulations being published well in advance so that we can at least debate and discuss them and try to change the Government’s mind would be extremely helpful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her clarification of the statistic used in the earlier debate on age assessments.
Turning to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I am heartened to hear, and indeed I entirely agree with him, that this group particularly highlights a point on which all across the Chamber are agreed—that there should be safe and legal routes—and the question is about the mechanics of that safe and legal route and how it fits with the scheme in the Bill to deter people embarking on dangerous journeys across the channel. It is in the spirit of that consensus that I conclude this debate.
Before I turn to the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I say a little about Clauses 58 and 59, not least as this will provide important context for the examination of the amendments. This Bill will introduce for the first time a cap on the number of people entering the UK through safe and legal routes based on local authority capacity. Clause 58 sets out how that cap will be developed and agreed. In answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the cap is being introduced in recognition of the limited capacity that local authorities have to house and support through integration and local services, such as health and education, those in need of resettlement in the UK, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Green.
In recent years, following the fall of Kabul and the war in Ukraine, we have welcomed and provided sanctuary to larger numbers of people than we could comfortably manage because it was the right thing to do, and I appreciate the remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made in relation to that. Going forward, it is right that both Houses have the opportunity to debate and approve through the affirmative procedure—which I can confirm to the noble Lord—the numbers to be admitted to the UK each year through safe and legal routes. That is the purpose of Clause 58. Local authorities have been required to provide accommodation for these large cohorts and subsequently there is no longer sufficient capacity in our system for our UNHCR-referred global settlement schemes to function in the way in which they were intended.
At this point, I wish to clarify this route for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. The UK’s global resettlement schemes do not involve an application process. Instead, those who have sought sanctuary in the first safe country should on arrival register with the relevant authorities as a person in need of international protection. The UNHCR is expertly placed to help the UK authorities identify and process vulnerable refugees who would benefit from resettlement in the UK and has responsibility for all out-of-country casework activity relating to our resettlement schemes.
I remind the Committee, especially my noble friend Lady Helic, that even under our current constraints between 2015 and March 2023 the UK resettled more than 28,400 individuals under UNHCR resettlement schemes, around half of whom were children. I should be clear that the cap does not remove any routes or change our willingness to help. However, consulting on capacity and developing the cap figure based on the response is the right way to continue offering resettlement pathways to the UK for those in need of our protection as part of a well-managed and sustainable migration system.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I apologise for missing the start of this debate as I was in a committee. Will the Minister explain why Clause 58 imposes a cap on the maximum number of people who may enter the United Kingdom, not the maximum number of asylum seekers, using safe and legal routes—in other words, tourists, businessmen, or whatever? They tend to come by safe and legal routes. I do not understand the drafting. Secondly, will the Minister consider the cart and horse problem? He has said more than once—I hope I have got it correctly—that once illegal immigration is under control the Government will create new safe and legal routes. However, the way of getting the illegal immigration problem under control is by creating safe and legal routes. Will he address that point?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I appreciate that the noble Lord was unable to be here at the beginning of the debate. I hope that Clause 58(1) makes it clear that the regulations must specify
“the maximum number of persons who may enter the United Kingdom annually using safe and legal routes”.
There is a cross-reference to subsection (7), where noble Lords will see that “safe and legal route” is a defined term. It means
“a route specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
Those regulations will clarify what that term means.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I understand the Minister’s point, but it does not answer the question that I asked: why does the clause talk about “persons” rather than asylum seekers?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is because that is the structure of the legislation, and it simply makes for good parliamentary drafting. There it is. Forgive me: I shall make some progress because we have a lot of groups to deal with.
Clause 58 provides for the Home Secretary to consult local authorities, and any other organisation or person deemed suitable, to understand their capacity. The cap figure, and by extension the routes to be covered by the cap, will be considered and voted on in Parliament through a draft affirmative statutory instrument. The cap will not automatically apply to all current and new safe and legal routes that we offer or will introduce in the future. The policy intention is to manage the accommodation burden on local authorities, and my officials are currently considering which routes are most suitable to be included within the cap.
Alongside the cap on safe and legal routes, Clause 59 further requires the Home Secretary to publish a report on existing and any proposed new safe and legal routes. In response to the right reverend Prelate, we will continue to work with the UNHCR and other organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in devising proposed additional safe and legal routes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
This is a technical point, but it is important to reflect on it before Report. It is not a substantive policy point, but the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, may have hit on something, in relation not just to the question of why it does not say “asylum seekers” but to a potential unlawful sub-delegation. If the regulation-making power is about safe and legal routes, and “safe and legal routes” will not be defined in vires in the primary legislation but will be determined in the regulations, there is a circularity that is in danger of looking either too vague or specifically like a potential unlawful sub-delegation. No doubt the Minister and his colleagues can discuss that with parliamentary counsel. I may be totally wrong, but the noble Lord may have hit on a point which the Government have been given an opportunity—there is time—to consider before Report. That is what Committee is for.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said, we have considered these issues and are satisfied with the drafting as it is, but of course I will look again at what the noble Baroness suggests.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Minister talked about “devising” new schemes; I asked for co-creation. Is he willing to go so far as to say “co-creating”?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to point to the fact that these things are always a joint effort. The Home Secretary of the day will consult, and consider input, so yes, all those words would be applicable in my view. Clearly, ultimately the scheme has to come from the Home Office, but it will be done following appropriate consultation with and the involvement of interested parties.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I should probably, in order to have a more coherent speech, take his more general points at the end. I am conscious that we need to make progress, not least because we do not wish to be here into the small hours.
As I say, the report described in Clause 59, which will be laid before Parliament within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent, will clearly set out the existing safe and legal routes that are offered, detail any proposed additional safe and legal routes, and explain how adults and children in need of sanctuary in the UK can access those routes. This clause is being introduced to provide clarity around the means by which those in need of protection can find sanctuary here.
Through the report, we will also set out any proposed additional safe and legal routes which are not yet in force. While a range of routes is offered at present, we believe it important to consider whether alternative routes are necessary and, if so, who would be eligible. In recognition of the different needs of children and adults in need of protection, the clause will require the report to set out which routes are accessible by adults or children.
It is against this backdrop of the Government’s approach to expanding the existing safe and legal routes that I now turn to the amendments in this group.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My intervention is pertinent to that clause. Can he confirm, first, what I had indicated from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact: that it was the Home Office that asked for the UNHCR to direct the resettlement scheme to be focused on Afghans only, therefore closing it down for other countries; and, secondly, that when it comes to what the Government could consider to be new and safe and legal routes, they could simply be expanding some of the funding available for the UK resettlement scheme, because that is what the Government currently define as a safe and legal route, rather than it being new country routes?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
On the first point, I do not have that detail to hand so I will go away and find that out and write to the noble Lord. But on the second point, obviously, the UK resettlement scheme is a general scheme to take refugees who have been identified by the UNHCR and in that sense it is not geographically specified. Obviously, these are all issues which would be considered in the report provided for under Clause 59, so the noble Lord is right to identify that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on, I asked a question about children, which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Coaker. The Minister mentioned children in relation to appropriate routes but the Children’s Commissioner has argued that children should be excluded from any cap. I asked what the Government’s response was to that recommendation.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I ask the noble Baroness to forgive me; I was going to come to that. I have met with the Children’s Commissioner and we have an ongoing dialogue on the provisions in the Bill. There is no intention to exclude children, for the simple reason that children utilise resources in the same way as adult asylum seekers do. Therefore, in assuming the global level of resources needed to provide adequate support and integration for asylum seekers, whether adults or children, it is appropriate that a global view be taken. Therefore, it is necessary to take a global view of the cap.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My noble friend the Minister just spoke of “alternative” rather than “additional” routes. Can he confirm that these would in fact be additional routes, rather than just taking one route out and putting another route in?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Yes, I was simply using the word “alternative” to discuss that particular route, but there is no intention to withdraw any routes. Obviously, it may be that routes are consolidated or changed so that they are incorporated—I do not want to tie any future Government’s hands on that—but I can reassure my noble friend in that regard.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In just a second. My noble friend Lady Sugg also spoke to this amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Can we come back to that at the end?
On Report in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Immigration confirmed that the Government’s aim is to implement any proposed new safe and legal routes as soon as practicable, and in any event by the end of 2024. I hope that directly answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I believe that the timeframe proposed by the Immigration Minister is suitable as it will allow for proper consultation on potential new safe and legal routes, and meaningful consultation with our international partners and key stakeholders, to ensure that any proposed routes work well. It will enable us to work collaboratively across government to welcome and integrate new arrivals. While we are committed to considering new safe and legal routes, we must also acknowledge the current local authority capacity to house and support refugees. It makes no sense to launch new routes where we do not have the capacity to bring people to sanctuary in the UK and ensure their successful integration into our society; otherwise, it would simply be an exercise in paperwork.
In addition, as I have indicated, Clause 59 commits the Home Secretary to publishing a report on current and any proposed new safe and legal routes within six months of the Bill achieving Royal Assent. The proposed amendment would risk rendering this report meaningless. I believe the proper thing to do is to lay the report before Parliament, as we have committed to do, after which we can make a measured decision on any new safe and legal route that may be needed. My noble friend’s amendment, while well-intentioned, would not enable us to do the work needed to ensure that our safe and legal routes form part of a well-managed and sustainable migration system.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I return to Amendment 128B and his comments on those with BNO status. I raised whether they should be included within the safe and legal routes for the clear reason that they are not seeking protection and do not fall under UNHCR; they are British citizens who have rights under the British Nationality Act. If there are limits to their numbers, are the Government proposing to change the arrangement for BNO status applicants, and can we please add this to the agenda of the meeting that he promised me on Monday night? It is a very specific issue but a major political one if these people with British national rights are suddenly to be treated as if they are refugees.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I say, the definition of those to be caught will be specified in the regulations. Those are all highly pertinent points and, for the reasons I set out on Monday, we can certainly add them to our meeting agenda. I do not anticipate that we are at odds on this, but the topic is not really for the discussion of the Committee at this stage, because these matters would be covered when any regulations were considered.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
With the greatest of respect to the Minister, it is covered by Amendment 128B. It is quite explicitly covered by that amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness says and hope to be able to offer her some more reassurance during our meeting but, for the reasons I have already set out, the Government do not accept that Amendment 128B is a necessary amendment to the Bill. No doubt we can discuss this further in due course.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister has left me a little confused about numbers. He said that it would be a terrible thing if we admitted more asylum seekers by safe and legal routes than could be housed by local authorities. He has made much of the fact that this would be an exercise in futility—a “paper exercise”, he said. Can he say what assurances the Government got from local authorities about housing the 606,000 people in the net migration figures this year? It seems a bit odd that a much smaller number of asylum seekers should be subjected to these limitations whereas the much larger number is not.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The noble Lord omits to understand that the obligation to assist an asylum seeker is born of Section 95 of the 1996 Act, which applies to destitute asylum seekers. Those entering the country on a visa—for example, as a student—would not be entitled to government support for housing. The noble Lord is perhaps eliding two points in a way that is not particularly helpful.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I am slightly confused on this point as well. On a number of occasions, the Minister has said that the cap will be set based on the number of available housing places that local authorities are able to provide. However, Clause 58(5) refers to:
“If in any year the number of persons who enter the United Kingdom using safe and legal routes exceeds the number specified in the regulations”.
I have two questions about that. Under what circumstances would the Minister and the Government expect that number to be exceeded? More importantly, if local authorities have said that they can deal with only a certain number in a year, where will the people who breach the cap go?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Obviously, consultation with local authorities is important—they are the primary consultee set out in Clause 58(2)(a)—but, as the noble Lord will see from paragraph (b), other persons and bodies are also possible consultees. All this information will be fed into the decision to be taken by the Secretary of State in drawing up the regulations, and by this House and the other place in discussing them. It is not just about how many people we can house; it is about the whole network of support and integration that we can provide. As the noble Lord will immediately appreciate, Clause 58(5) is there as an enforcement mechanism for Parliament to ask a Secretary of State why they have permitted the cap to be exceeded. That is the purpose of making the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a statement setting out those breaches. That is the purpose of Clause 58(5). It is not envisaged that the Secretary of State will allow the cap to be exceeded, for the sensible reasons that the noble Lord provides.
I must make some progress. Amendment 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seeks significantly to increase the current scope of the UK’s refugee family reunion policy to include additional family members. This amendment needs to be seen in the context of what I submit is already a very generous family reunion policy for bringing families together. Under this policy, we have granted more than 46,000 visas since 2015; that is no small feat, and a fact that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett, seem to have overlooked.
The focus of our refugee family reunion policy is on reuniting core family groups. This is as it should be. It allows immediate family members—that is, the partner and any children aged under 18—of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of a family unit before the sponsor left their country to seek protection. In exceptional circumstances, children over 18 are also eligible.
There are separate provisions in the Immigration Rules to allow extended family members to sponsor children to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances. In addition, refugees can sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them where, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can be provided only by relatives in the UK. There is also discretion to grant leave outside of the Immigration Rules which caters for extended family members where there are compelling compassionate circumstances.
Amendment 129 would routinely extend the policy to cover a person’s parents, their adult unmarried children under the age of 25, and their siblings. Extending family reunion without careful consideration of the implications would significantly increase the number of people who would qualify to come here. We must carefully weigh the impact of eligibility criteria against the pressure that this would undoubtedly place on already strained central government and local services.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am afraid that the Minister’s use of the word “impact” triggered me. It would be very interesting to know, when we get the impact assessment— I hope sooner than “in due course”—the costings the Government would expect from something such as my amendment, or indeed my Private Member’s Bill.
I want to draw attention to something that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned. All the time, the Government imply that those of us who argue for better family reunion, the right to work and not having group 1 and group 2 refugees, are portrayed almost as though we are trying to obstruct the asylum system. Actually, we are trying to front-load it and make it more efficient and streamlined, so that in the end there would not be a backlog of160,000 asylum applications because the system would work better; people would be more integrated and more productive, and would not have to worry all the time about what was happening to their relations.
I am sorry that this has become a bit of a rant but I also have a question. Is the Minister going to cover the point that I felt was not answered in the Government’s response to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee? Why do the Government insist on having all these different definitions of family? Is it not all the time adding more complication into the immigration and asylum system? That is not the best way of getting caseworkers to be able to focus efficiently on their job. It means that, all the time, there are backlogs and inefficiency because the Government insist on not doing the rational thing.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I recall debating these topics and the very similar text of the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill at its Third Reading. The reality is that she and I differ on the appropriate numbers that would come in and the resources that would then be necessary to attend them. It is simply a policy decision, and we differ on that.
I turn to Amendments 130 and 131, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. These seek to create routes through which an individual may travel to the UK for the purpose of making a claim for asylum or protection. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope raised a similar point. The Government are clear that those in need of international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. This policy aligns with international law, and indeed with those of previous Governments, including the previous Labour Government. In answer to the question posed by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Purvis and Lord Paddick, that is the fastest route to safety. Such schemes would only add further untold pressure to UK systems.
Amendment 130 defines an eligible applicant as someone who
“is present in a member State of the European Union”.
This underlines the point: EU member states are inherently safe countries with functioning asylum systems. There is therefore no reason why a person should not seek protection in the country concerned. Moreover, this amendment would also encourage more people to make dangerous and unnecessary journeys, including across the Mediterranean, to qualify for a safe passage visa.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the Minister think that the cost should also be measured in terms of the reputation of the United Kingdom, the country as it is and the way it feels about itself? It is not just money.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I clearly recognise the points the noble Lord makes—that it is believed that not providing a visa route of the type described in the amendment will damage our international reputation—but no countries that I am aware of currently have a visa route of the type suggested. I am afraid that this is a consideration to be weighed in the balance. It would seem irresponsible not to consider the potential extreme cost of the proposal.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister should not be conflating the two amendments: they are distinct amendments with distinct mechanisms and purpose behind them, so it is a wee bit cheeky of him to do that. As for an estimate of some of the costs, can he do me a deal now in the Committee? I am not sure if this is able to be negotiated across the Committee, but I will show him mine if he shows me his before Report. He needs to present the impact assessment, which will be the Government’s estimate of the tariff costs for their UK resettlement scheme expansion, which he is proposing, to be part of a new safe and alternative or additional safe and legal route. I will use the basis of the central core estimates of what the Home Office is estimating to be the expansion necessary in the tariff funds available, which are scored against overseas development assistance, and I will use that on the threshold of what a humanitarian visa scheme might be. His scheme suggests to an Iranian woman that she has to flee to a neighbouring country to go to the UNHCR; then she is processed by the UNHCR, to be resettled in the UK. Our scheme allows that woman within Iran to go through a similar threshold to be able to access the UK. Which is most efficient?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I look forward to reading the noble Lord’s document when it arrives.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
In due course— I am very grateful. All these questions make it clear that bringing up legal migration is irrelevant to the Bill, a point that relates to comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The issue for the Bill is that the UK Government and local authorities have limited capacity to provide or arrange accommodation, hence a sensible cap is needed. There are other questions we need answers to. Are these safe passage visas to be given to young single men at the expense of those in more pressing need of sanctuary in the UK?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I hope the Minister will reflect before Report on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I do not recall a cap on Czechs in 1968 or on Hungarians in 1956. There was no cap on Germans and Austrians in 1938 and 1939. The reputational damage to this country done by the idea of a cap would be considerable. It could be defused if the Government would consider an amendment to Clause 58(3) which made it clear that a change of international circumstances, as well as a change of domestic circumstances, could create the need to change the number. To me, the horror is that we are doing this all endogenously, as if needs have nothing to do with what happens exogenously in the world out there—so if something awful happens in the world, we will pay no attention because we will be concerned about the consultation we had with local authorities about houses.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not sure the noble Lord and I actually differ on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It seems to me that the impact on the national reputation of Britain is not relevant, given the provision for the cap to be varied in the event of an international emergency such as he outlined. As he will see, Clause 58(3) states:
“the Secretary of State considers that the number needs to be changed as a matter of urgency”.
He can provide that regulation to both Houses of Parliament without consulting, and therefore the matter will be capable of discussion and approval and the cap lifted. In reality, I do not think there is any risk to our national reputation as a place which takes its obligations of international protection seriously.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Forgive me, I have taken an awful lot of interventions, and I am very conscious of the time. I ask the noble Lord to keep this intervention until the end and allow me to make some progress.
I will return to the amendment. If, on the other hand, some numerical limit is envisaged, these schemes will not stop the boats and they are not an alternative to the Bill. Those who do not qualify for a safe passage visa will continue to be exploited by the people smugglers, all too ready to continue to take their money on the false promise of a new life in the UK.
As I have set out, we are ready to expand existing safe and legal routes as we get a grip on illegal migration, and the Bill already provides for this. That is the way forward, not amendments which exacerbate the current challenges. I commend Clauses 58 and 59 to the Committee and invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I was very encouraged by the answer the Minister gave. He seems to be saying that the needs referred to in Clause 58(3) could be exogenous as well as endogenous: that the cap could be raised in response to an urgent need even if that need had nothing to do with housing here but something to do with massacre or war abroad. If that is the case, could that not be made clear in the Bill by a government amendment to Clause 58(3)?
Lord Murray of Blidworth
I can certainly think about that. I will take it away, but I do not think we are terribly far apart.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering and clarifying some of the questions. My prophetic powers in saying “about two hours” were slightly wrong. The last two and a half hours will be memorable for a number of things—the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, quoting Ronald Reagan being one of them—and there were helpful reminders of no person being illegal. There were helpful alternatives to “safe and legal routes”, but I think that we will have to live with “safe and legal routes”. No one has implied that we will change the wording in the Bill. The Minister helpfully pointed out that there will be a definition in the regulations, so that helps us. I am not sure that the Minister answered the historical question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, about why the change happened around 2011 concerning the use of embassies, but I am not going to ask him to stand up.
Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say that, overall, I am disappointed that my amendment, not just about Hong Kong but particularly about Hong Kong, has not been accepted. It does not damage the Bill in any way to accept that amendment. Likewise, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, tries to clarify. That is the purpose, and the Minister’s response has not helped us move forward on that. I have no doubt that all of us involved will find ourselves in discussions about what we might bring back on Report. The desire is to take things forward on safe and legal routes.
At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 14th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am, of course, hugely disappointed that some of our colleagues do not want to listen to a fascinating debate on Clause 60 of the Illegal Migration Bill, just as some of those who stayed until 4 am the other morning did not want to participate in the debates on the Bill. However, I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is joining our ranks. It is wonderful to have an Earl Russell back. Those who remember Conrad Russell will know what a formidable Member of this House he was, and I am sure that his son will do justice to his memory.
I am talking against Clause 60 standing part. This clause was added by the Government on Report in the Commons, so it was not discussed by MPs. It would amend a section of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 that is about factors that damage the credibility of an asylum applicant.
The point of Clause 60 is to expand the circumstances in which credibility would be damaged—where a claimant fails to produce or destroys an identity document or, indeed, where they refuse to disclose information such as a passcode that would enable access to information stored electronically, such as on a mobile phone. It is rather odd that we should be debating this poor, lonely little clause on its own. Indeed, there was perhaps a good argument that it should have been grouped with Clause 14, which my noble friend Lord German, on whichever day it was—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Yes, when it was proposed that Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill. My noble friend debated issues about the powers of the Government to extract information concealed behind PIN numbers on phones. If memory serves, Clause 14 was particularly in relation to people who are detained, while Clause 60 oddly stands on its own—apart from Clause 14. But they need to be looked at holistically, to try to get some assessment as to what new powers the Government want. Are we in danger of getting spillover to sectors other than asylum?
The failure to provide information, an identity document or a PIN number would be added as a type of behaviour considered damaging to a claimant’s credibility. It is not restricted to people who are caught by Clause 2; the intended effect seems to be directed more at people seeking asylum who arrive on a direct flight from the country in which they face persecution. In a sense, it does not have much to do with this Bill, which is another reason why it sets off a bit of an alarm bell. The problem is that making a direct journey from a country in which the person is at risk of persecution, perhaps where the persecutor is the state or an agent of the state, may require the person not to travel with documentation that would identify them if they presented that documentation or were searched as they passed through an airport. That would concern an identity document—so there are some issues around penalising a person because they have not produced such a document, and I would be grateful if the Minister could respond on that issue.
On the other arm of it, with regard to insisting on the person delivering the passcode or PIN for their phone, I am wondering how widely that is expected to apply and how it relates to Clause 14 on getting access to PIN numbers and, indeed, to handing over mobile phones. My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the problem that that would mean asylum applicants not having access to their contacts. In the scenario that this Bill covers, that means that people could not phone their family to say, “I’m safe—I haven’t drowned in the channel”. So that is one aspect that arises. The other aspect is that of access and forcing someone to give up the PIN on their phone. When the Minister replied to the debate on Clause 14 and Schedule 2, he said that that the information on the phone
“can … assist in determining a person’s immigration status or right to be in the UK … We all know that mobile telephones contain a wealth of data relating not just to the owner of the phone but to where that phone has been and who they have been with—all of which can be used to build up an intelligence picture which can facilitate criminal prosecutions”.—[Official Report, 7/6/2023; col. 1542.]
We are all in favour of facilitating prosecutions. That is one of the reasons why we have been so dismayed by the provisions on victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Another reason is that there is nothing in the Bill to enhance the prosecution of smugglers and traffickers. Suddenly the Minister came out with this route which is supposed to facilitate criminal prosecutions. My noble friend Lord German referred to a High Court case which said that what the Government had been doing was illegal and that they were wrong to extract information concealed behind PINs on phones. The Minister said that the powers that have been put into the Bill in Clause 14 are fresh powers to respond to the High Court judgment, so this is a new suite of powers.
What we have got is in two different clauses. We have new powers, and the common theme across them is access to people’s mobile phones and other electronic devices by forcing them to give up PINs. I am wondering what the scope of this is, beyond people detained or caught by Clause 2, because Clause 60 appears to apply to anybody who is outwith the scope of the Bill. What are the boundaries of the powers that the Government are granting themselves to access people’s mobile phones? I cannot claim to be an expert on this issue, but I know there has been a lot of commentary and activity on the question of victims’ mobile phones in sexual abuse cases. Will the Minister clarify exactly what the purpose of Clauses 14 and 60 is? Why was Clause 60 brought in to stand on its own rather than Clause 14 being amended? What is the composite picture that the Government are painting? How are their powers going to be constrained? Are the rest of us going to find that one day all these powers apply to us as well? I am raising this point as a clause stand part debate because Clause 60 seems to raise some rather troubling questions about the powers that the Government want to give themselves to access mobile phones.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for introducing her clause stand part debate. As she said, the clause adds behaviours that would be considered damaging to the credibility of an asylum or human rights applicant by amending the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 to widen false “passport” to false “identity document” which ensures that by presenting false documents, failing to produce documents or destroying documents an applicant damages their credibility. It also adds electronic information to the list. If an applicant fails to disclose passcodes or electronic devices, their credibility can be damaged.
In a sense, this would not be a particularly controversial part of the Bill. However, there have been reports about confiscation of mobile devices which has left migrants unable to contact the outside world or to provide the electronic documents needed for their applications. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the recent High Court case where the Home Office policy on blanket mobile seizure was found unlawful. She also referred to the Minister saying that Clause 14 provides fresh powers through the Bill to respond to the High Court judgment.
I thought that the noble Baroness raised interesting questions about the scope of this clause and whether it goes beyond what is covered in Clause 2 and how widely it will apply. The tone with which she introduced her clause stand part notice seemed to be seeking information and reassurance regarding these enhanced powers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to provide that reassurance and explanation. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their thoughts on Clause 60.
Clause 60 clarifies and modernises Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, which relates to the credibility of asylum claimants. First, in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, this provision will not be relevant to those who meet the conditions in Clause 2, as their asylum claims will of course be inadmissible, but it will be relevant to other asylum seekers. It is appropriate that we use the opportunity afforded by the Bill to address this issue for the reasons that I will come to in a moment. The clause puts it beyond doubt that destroying, altering, disposing of or failing to produce any identity document—not just a passport—is behaviour that should be viewed by decision-makers as damaging a claimant’s credibility.
Secondly, the clause modernises Section 8 to reflect the fact that mobile phones and electronic devices play a much more significant role in people’s daily lives in storing relevant documents and information than they did 20 years ago. We have therefore expressly provided that refusing to disclose information, such as a passcode which would enable access to a person’s mobile phone or other electronic device, should be damaging to their credibility. In so doing, we are reading across provisions that exist in criminal law in relation to Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and equivalent provisions in Scotland. I hope noble Lords agree that it would be inconsistent to treat what would amount to the effective concealment of a document, by not providing access, stored electronically any differently from the concealment of a physical document.
Finally, the clause brings Section 8 of the 2004 Act up to date by clarifying that the provisions relating to documents apply where those documents are stored in electronic form.
Clause 14 is a separate part of the Bill and introduces new powers. We already have some powers to seize devices, but Clause 14 introduces new powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, observed, and as we discussed in Committee on the relevant group of amendments. Clause 60 will of course apply no matter which power of seizure is used.
I hope that I have provided the requested clarity, and I further hope that Clause 60 will stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for those explanations. It may be that my brain has gone to cotton wool—I will read his response in Hansard to try to see the whole picture. At the moment, I cannot see the overall coherence of this scheme.
The Minister is going to send me scurrying off to look up the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, of which I have just a vague memory. I am sure that colleagues on other Benches will know its provisions off the top of their heads, but is there any sort of reasonable suspicion trigger, or some such, in that Act, about investigating crime and suspected terrorism? I do not know, but my fear with all of this is of mission creep. I am not sure whether the Minister has fully removed that fear, but I will carefully read his response and I am sure that, with his normal courtesy, if I have any follow-up questions he will deal with them in writing.
Baroness Hamwee
“Operational efficiency(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must publish a management review undertaken by management experts outside the Home Office, of—(a) the efficiency of the processing by UK Visas and Immigration of applications, and(b) the efficiency of the removal by Immigration Control of persons whose leave to remain has expired.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) “efficiency” includes fairness, and(b) the review must include information regarding the numbers of appeals and their success rate.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent management review of the efficiency of UK Visas and Immigration in processing applications and the efficiency of the removal process for those whose leave to remain has expired.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is the first of a number of proposed new clauses relating to the efficiency of the Home Office and the elusive—maybe even illusory—impact assessment statement. We know we will be told that the impact assessment will be published “in due course”. The timetabling may be clear to the Home Office but it is not to any other noble Lord who has spoken. It occurred to me that the Home Office could really teach even Avanti West Coast or TransPennine Express something about timetabling.
We cannot put into the Bill that it should not go to Report without an impact assessment. Amendment 149 is therefore one of a number that I have tabled, all following the same form of drafting, so that the Bill should
“not come into force until”
and unless various things had happened, one of them being the receipt of the impact assessment. I realised, on reflection, that it was not my cleverest thought because I did not mean any old sort of impact assessment; I meant the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was referring to the other day, when he talked about due diligence. That is a term I understand pretty well, as I think most people would. However, the amendment enables me to make the point that noble Lords have been making throughout.
On Monday, the Minister certainly referred to an economic impact assessment, as I think he mentioned before. My reading of the debates is that noble Lords want far more than just an economic assessment. I do not need to spell out that the impact of the Bill on third-sector organisations and so on, as well as individuals, will be considerable.
Amendment 132 is about the operation of the Home Office. Frankly, it is a pretty mild amendment, especially given how often it is remarked—I agree with this—that the backlog of applications is the problem, not the number of asylum seekers. The amendment simply calls for a management review by independent experts.
Many people are calling for the Home Office to clear applications from asylum seekers who come from countries whose nationals succeed in their applications in almost every case. We have heard reference to this throughout the Committee. It should be quite straightforward, but I confess that I am in two minds about it. I am anxious that asylum seekers are not all in the same position or with the same characteristics, even if they come from the same country. It would be too easy not to see each asylum seeker as an individual whose application should be treated as that particular individual’s application. However, that does not invalidate the point that what has been happening—or not happening —in the Home Office, rather than in the channel, is at the heart of the situation.
I mentioned earlier today the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee’s report, All Families Matter: An Inquiry Into Family Migration, and the Home Office’s response to it. During the inquiry that led to that report, the committee, which I chair, heard from witnesses vivid descriptions of their attempts to find out what was happening to their applications. To give one example, people said that they had to hold the line for long periods and had to give a credit card number in their details because they had to pay for the call. They paid to sit on the phone but then found, when they got through, that they were not speaking to the right person or that the number that they had been told to call was not the right one. The frustration and distress mount and mount. We know that the Home Office’s service standards were affected by the Ukraine visa scheme and that the Home Office aims—I stress that word—to begin republishing quarterly performance data as soon as possible. Let me stress that I do not think that any of this is the fault of individual officials; there is something about leadership and management that needs to be sorted.
I will not read a lot from the Government’s response to the committee’s report but I want to pick out a couple of points. We made these recommendations:
“The Home Office should adopt a new approach to communication … The Home Office should establish standards about its communication with applicants and routinely publish statistics on whether these standards are met. Applicants should be able to contact the Home Office free of charge”.
The Government’s response states that the Home Office
“is working on a notification service”;
it is “currently in test”, it says. It goes to say:
“All applications are proactively monitored, and customers”—
I hate the word “customers” in this context—
“are notified prior to the end date of the service standard”.
Communication does not seem to be the Home Office’s strongest point or its natural behaviour; it is not one of its characteristics. So much of this goes back to efficiency and sympathy for customers, which matters an awful lot. These people feel that, too often, too many of them are treated as statistics and numbers. The service is a poor one. That is one of the reasons why I have tabled Amendment 132, which I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 139 in this group is in my name. This group is all about efficiency and administration. Amendment 139 is purely a probing amendment—there is no way that anyone would seek to engineer changes to the machinery of government via an opposition amendment to yet another immigration Bill—but I put it down to probe the tensions that have been emerging and increasing in recent years, even months and weeks, between the respective competencies and missions of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on the one hand and the Home Office on the other. I also tabled it to stress the vital importance of international co-operation in dealing with the worst refugee crisis since just after the Second World War. It is, I am afraid, a crisis that is only going to deepen with the threats posed not just by the various conflicts all over the globe but by the climate crisis, as others have said.
Amendment 139 probes and sets out the kind of functions that sit with the Secretary of State. Noble Lords will remember that the Secretary of State is indivisible, so when Governments of various stripes move the deckchairs around and pass functions from one department to another or even rename or reconstruct departments, the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State. The kind of functions that I set out in my suggestion for an office for refugees and asylum seekers are those in general that are much more suited to the expertise and mission of the Foreign Office. That is why consideration of the various international obligations is set out, such as the function of considering safe passage and humanitarian protection and advising the Secretary of State in relation to aid and other action in conflict. It is the relationship between over there and over here.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I have put my name to Amendments 134 and 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I will leave it to him to speak to them if he wishes to do so at any length. I support these amendments to ensure that we have accountability and review, and I do so on a probing basis.
I think the Minister who will reply to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has been subjected to a considerable amount of attrition on the Bill—which he has treated with commendable control and self-restraint. Few have been provoked as much as he has in this Chamber in recent years. That said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would confirm in his private conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is real concern in your Lordships’ House and in certain well-informed sectors in the country about the consequences of the Bill.
In the recent past we have had reviews—I and my noble friend Lord Anderson have been part of this in relation to terrorism—which have reported to Parliament in relation to controversial pieces of legislation that cause great concern, particularly to Members of the other place. I understand that, having been one. I simply ask the Government to take into account that such reviews are necessary in some form and to provide for accountability and review of the consequences of the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She made her case for transferring this responsibility from the Home Office to the Foreign Office on grounds of efficiency and good administration. In my totally unbiased view, it is of course the case that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a model of efficiency and good administration. But on practical grounds, I really do not agree with this.
There is a Foreign Office role. The role of the treaty section is monitoring, ratification procedures and quality control over the treaties that we sign. There is a role for legal advisers, referred to by the noble Baroness, monitoring the Government’s respect for their treaty obligations and, if necessary, reminding other departments of the obligations that we have taken on.
There could be a role for our posts abroad. I strongly support the proposal in Amendment 130 for the safe passage visa. It would be very good if our posts abroad were allowed, say, to filter out applications that are clearly not unfounded and to assist applicants with the electronic application system. That would be very good, but the trend in the Home Office, which the noble Baroness in my view correctly described, to move more and more to being a department of the interior, with a bit of homeland security, would be increased if responsibility for carrying out our treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers were transferred to another department.
Moreover, the Foreign Office really is not equipped to take on the enhanced teams required to deal with 178,000 applicants in the asylum queue. So, although I understand the noble Baroness’s motives and applaud her praise for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I am against this proposal.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the Minister ought to welcome Amendments 132, 134 and 135, because they simply ask for transparency of reporting back on the success of the Bill. The introduction says:
“The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.
Most of the arguments have been around the Government’s conviction that this is the right way to stop the boats. Many of us in this Committee believe that it will not stop the boats, that we will end up with large numbers of people being detained for indefinite periods and that it will cost a huge amount of money.
I quite happily accept that the Minister will probably say that practically these amendments cannot work with one month and might need a different timescale and so on, but they are basically saying, “Please report that this is doing what the Bill set out to do”. Really, I cannot see how the Government can object to being required to report on their own successes.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me that I was unable to speak at Second Reading and will allow me to make a few comments. Since I have returned to the Back Benches, I have tried to focus on a few amendments rather than speaking on everything, so this is my first intervention in this part. I want to speak because I have huge sympathy for Amendment 132 in this group and Amendment 150 in the next group about operational efficiency. In fact, I have submitted Written Questions on the issue of the backlog and what the Government are doing to tackle it, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for answering them. I hope noble Lords will forgive me, because this is the first and only time I will speak at this stage, if I make a few more general comments.
First, I am very concerned about the language we are using and the lack of compassion we are demonstrating. I do not think it right that we condemn people who are either fleeing persecution and torture or even coming to this country as economic migrants. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be an economic migrant. My parents were economic migrants; they came here to seek a better life. I understand all that and I think we should show some sympathy and understanding, but I also think we should be proud that people want to come to the United Kingdom, because we are one of the most open countries in the world and we have, over the years, assimilated many immigrants who have fled persecution or come here for economic reasons, to contribute to this country.
Noble Lords will have often heard me say that we should be grateful to the people from the Commonwealth —my father came in the early 1950s—who saved British public services after the war. If it were not for these immigrants, our public services would be in trouble. On this specific issue, we should be clear that while we are proud that people want to come to the United Kingdom, and while our heart may want to help as many people as possible, our head says that we cannot let everyone in. Therefore, the debate is often about where we draw the line, particularly for those who are facing persecution.
If we could do it for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and it is right that we do, why can we not understand where the problems are in the system and throw resources at them? We could have internal hit squads that tackle specific issues. We did it for Ukraine: we were able to pull people off other things to tackle issues. We are not elected, but the voters and citizens out there want to understand what is slowing down the process. Why does it take so long to sort out the backlog? If we can identify those bits of the process that are taking too long—if there are particular legal problems, people are throwing away passports, there are problems with DNA tests or whatever—it would be helpful to the Government’s case to tell us where the problems are and what they are doing to tackle these issues.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kerr, will be pleased with my remarks because this is my plea for the impact assessment.
I am delighted to see that we may get a different answer because we have a different Minister, although I have to tell the Minister that if he says “in due course” or “on the first day of Report”, he will get the reaction that his noble friend Lord Murray got. I say, half in jest, it was not great knowing that the Minister was going to reply to this point about the impact assessment, given what happened when he was replying to me yesterday with respect to the Public Order Bill, when the Explanatory Memorandum was published the day after the other place discussed the public order regulations and I received it at 2.27 pm for a 7.30 pm debate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, having learned from that, is now on the case to ensure that the impact assessment will be with us well before Report.
The serious point is that all noble Lords are saying to the Home Office that it is simply unacceptable that we are flying in the dark here. We need the information before us. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, can come up with another phrase which gives us more hope and expectation, because that is the serious point here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his support for Amendments 134 and 135, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for her support for Amendment 138. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, what we have here is an attempt to bring accountability and review into the system. This is about Home Office operational efficiency. The asylum system is in chaos. If it is not in chaos, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what word he would use for the enormous backlog, the increase in the time that any decision is taking, the drop in the number of people being returned, the surges in people coming across the channel, and the individual injustices. I remind noble Lords, if they have not seen it, that 616 migrants crossed the channel on Sunday. I am not sure whether there have been any since, but on Sunday they came.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right: if I had known about Amendment 132—also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—requiring an independent review of the management and operation of the Home Office, I would have added my name to it. If we cannot get the bureaucracy, the applications and the decision-making process right, we will have a problem. No law will work if there is bureaucratic inefficiency, so I very much support that amendment.
Amendment 134, requiring the Government to publish an impact assessment of the financial consequences of the Bill, is a probing amendment, but you can see why we require one. We had more information from the Times newspaper about the potential cost of the Government’s reforms, when it went from £3 billion to £6 billion, than from the Government. All the Government can say is, “We don’t comment on leaks”. How on earth can we legislate when all we have to operate with are newspaper stories? We have no way of knowing. If the Government say this is not the case, then what is the case? What is the projected cost? Hence, there is Amendment 134.
Amendment 135 would require the Government to publish an impact assessment on the use of hotels and so on after the Bill has been enacted. Every now and again we read that the Government have bought a couple of barges; that certain hotels are not going to be used; that “it’s not going work at that military camp, so we’re going to try this one”. Then, suddenly, a disused liner sails into Weymouth. This is fag-packet policy. What are we doing? What is the plan? We have tabled this amendment because, clearly, the Government have a plan. In the Home Office, there will be an assessment of what is needed and how it will be done. There is a secret plan, which the Government will not share with us. If that is not the case, and instead it is a case of, “Goodness me, we’ll have to buy a barge”, then buy “Barge News” and see what is available next week. “Oh, I know: there’s a liner coming in”—
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
Has it occurred to the noble Lord that there may not even be a secret plan?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It had not occurred to me—but it has now.
The serious point is that there must be a plan. It cannot just be a question of, “I know—we will buy a barge, get a liner or buy this military camp”. There must be some sort of strategy, secret plan, non-secret plan or memo saying what the Government are going to do, yet we are not allowed to see, share in or understand it. I have never known anything like it. This is a flagship government Bill. It is an important way of dealing with a challenge that we all know must be dealt with, yet we are having to deal with it in this way. It is nonsensical.
There is another reason why we need to know this. As noble Lord after noble Lord has said, the whole premise of the Bill is that every single migrant crossing the channel or entering illegally will be detained and subject to removal. That must mean that the Government have a figure for how many detention places they will need. If not, can the Minister say, “We have no idea what we will need”, “This is what we think we will need”, or, as would normally happen, describe the worst-case and best-case scenario, or best guess? We have no idea. How many detention places are the Government assuming they will need for their Illegal Migration Bill to work?
Lord Scriven (LD)
Does it surprise the noble Lord to learn that I have asked that as a Written Question, and that the Answer was that it would be in the impact assessment?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
No, it does not surprise me that the noble Lord asked the Question. I had not noticed it, but the Answer does not surprise me. The serious point is that the Government are clearly working to figures—they have to be—but they are not sharing them with the Chamber. It cannot be that they are just making it up as they go along. Hence the probing amendment: let us know something about the consequences of the measures and how many detention places the Government are planning for. Presumably, it will be as many as they need because of the number coming across—whatever that will be. The whole thing is predicated on the Government saying, “It will deter people from coming; therefore, we won’t need many”. So what is the figure and the deterrence effect assumption that the Government are working towards?
Amendment 138 is just to understand what police co-operation is taking place to deter the criminal smuggling gangs and tackle the people smugglers. Again, we would like to know. According to the figures I have—it will be interesting to know the figures from the Minister—there have been just three to four convictions per month for people smuggling across the channel, including a halving in total convictions for smuggling since 2018 to just 135 a year. Can the Minister confirm those figures? Can he confirm that over the past 12 months, criminal smuggling gangs have made, according to estimates, £180 million? Can he also confirm what co-operation is taking place between all the EU member states and beyond to tackle the criminal smuggling gangs and deal with the people we would all wish to be prosecuted and jailed for their horrific actions? An update on that would be helpful. Presumably, that would also be in an impact assessment, so we could understand it.
Finally, my Amendment 139FD would insert a new clause requiring the Government to report on the number of those removed due to the passing of the Act. How many people are the Government assuming that they will remove? As I said, the whole Bill is predicated on detention and removal—that is the whole raison d’être—so what assumption do the Government have? As we asked on earlier clauses, where are these people going to be removed to? I know we have had the debates about proper conformity to treaties, human rights and all those sorts of things, but again, we need some statistics and facts about what the Government intend to do—where they intend to remove people to, but also the number they are seeking to remove.
We are moving beyond the stage of platitudes and rhetoric. We want some hard statistical evidence to back up what the Government are saying alongside their proposals. We cannot act; we do not know the statistics and the impact assessment is being denied to us. I say again: the frank reality is that the Government have figures within the Home Office that they are working to. The only people who are not having those figures shared with them are the people legislating on the Bill, and that, frankly, is simply and utterly unacceptable.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the main problem with the broken asylum system, which appeared to be working satisfactorily in 2010, is how it has come to create a disproportionately large backlog of those awaiting asylum decisions, set against a similar or smaller number of applications for asylum and a disproportionate number of failed asylum seekers awaiting removal. Amendment 132 seeks to address this. We will discuss with our Labour colleagues whether we should move to Report on the Bill in the absence of an impact assessment.
The Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation, last updated on 15 August 2022, says:
“The final impact assessment must be made available alongside bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament, with 80 copies sent to the Vote Office (30 of which should be marked for the attention of the Public Bill Office) and 10 to the Lords Printed Paper Office on introduction, and will need to be updated during parliamentary passage to reflect any changes made to the bill”.
Can the Minister say why the Government have not complied with the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation in relation to this Bill?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments today, and I thank all noble Lords for their comments.
Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would require the Home Secretary to commission an independent management review of the efficiency of UK Visas and Immigration in processing visa applications, and of Immigration Enforcement’s work in removing from the UK those whose right to remain has expired.
I recognise that we should always be striving for maximum efficiency, and indeed effectiveness, in everything we do. In that regard, I agree with my noble friend Lord Kamall. But making decisions quickly and accurately is obviously in the best interests of the individual concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, and represents value for money for the taxpayer; and, where there is misuse of the UK’s generous immigration system, so is ensuring that that is dealt with effectively. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking the commitment of countless staff across the immigration system who uphold fairness and professionalism while making complex decisions every day. As regards the backlog, I do not have the precise figures to hand, but I note that the Home Secretary was speaking this morning in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee and was quoting some of those statistics, if noble Lords would like to refer to that.
Paying external management consultants to look into the efficiency of these Home Office operations would be unnecessary and not, I suggest, a good use of public funds. Reports by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the National Audit Office and others continue to provide insights into how current operations can be improved, including by identifying and disseminating good practice. We also publish quarterly immigration statistics, including on asylum and returns, which help to shine a light on current performance and inform parliamentary scrutiny of the work of the Home Office.
I agree wholeheartedly that we need a culture of continuous improvement to enhance the efficiency, accuracy and fairness of our decision-making processes in respect of visa applications and the efficiency and effectiveness of our enforcement immigration operations. I am not persuaded that legislating for an independent management review is the most efficient way to go about this, but I of course welcome the intent behind the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister mentioned the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration reports. The 2021 report indicated four key issues: a shortage of technical specialist staff; inadequate training for asylum interviews; low morale and high turnover of staff because of lack of career progression; and the removal of the 2019 standard service to decide 98% of straightforward cases within six months. Recommendations have been made; how many have been implemented?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid I do not have answers to the noble Lord’s questions. I will have to come back to him on them, if he will permit me to do so.
Amendment 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and Amendment 149, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, bring us back to the question of the publication of the impact assessment for this Bill. I will take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that the equality impact assessment for the Bill was published on 10 May. Unfortunately, on the economic impact assessment, I can but reiterate what my noble friend Lord Murray has said on a number of occasions: namely, that it will be published in due course.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
On the subject of impact assessments, I am sure that my noble friend meant to ask where the child rights impact assessment is. It should have been available and shaped the decisions affecting children made during the Bill process, yet we still do not have a copy of it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that that question has been asked and answered by my noble friend; I cannot update the House on that at the moment.
As my noble friend set out on Monday, we will provide an update to the House before the first day of Report.
Lord German (LD)
In talking about this matter, could the Minister address the issue of why the Cabinet Office has issued guidance which the department has clearly ignored? Is there a need for the Cabinet Office to give guidance to Ministers on how they should produce legislation? If so, why have the Government not followed that advice?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the answer lies in the words the Home Secretary used this morning in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee. She said:
“We will be publishing it in due course”.
I am sorry to repeat those words again. She added:
“The issue is that there are many unknown factors … upon which the Bill’s success is contingent … For example, … the delivery of our Rwanda agreement. We are currently in litigation and those timelines are out of our control. We need to conclude our litigation relating to our Rwanda agreement. Once we have a clear view of the operability of Rwanda confirmed by the courts, then we will be able to take a very firm view about the economic impact of this Bill. … I would also say that to my mind it is pretty obvious what the economic impact … will be. We will stop spending £3 billion a year on … asylum cost”.
The Bill
“will lead to the cessation of 45,000 people in hotels and £6 million a day. To my mind, those are savings that we cannot ignore”.
I am afraid that I am unable to improve on that.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Minister has just asserted that he cannot improve on those words. I put on the record, on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition—other noble Lords can speak for themselves—that that is disgraceful.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry to upset the noble Lord opposite, but that is the best I can do.
Amendment 138, again put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is similar to his earlier amendment on returns agreements. It anticipates the debate we will come to later today about action to tackle people smuggling. As I do not want to pre-empt my noble and learned friend’s response to later amendments, I will keep my remarks brief at this stage. Suffice it to say that I support the broad intent of this amendment—namely, the need to strengthen the cross-border law enforcement response to modern slavery and people trafficking—but you do not advance such co-operation by setting out in a public document the UK’s negotiating strategy to agree co-operation agreements with other countries.
Moreover, there are also existing established channels which the NCA and others use when working with their counterparts to tackle human trafficking. Where new bilaterals or multilaterals are needed, we will pursue these, but, as I have said, there are well-established mechanisms which already support cross-border co-operation in this area.
In answer to the noble Lord’s questions about specific figures, I am afraid that I do not have those to hand; I will make those available to him later.
Amendment 135, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looks to the Government to publish an assessment of the likely impacts of the Bill on the use of contingency asylum accommodation and the costs associated with any necessary increase in the use of contingency asylum accommodation. The Home Office is committed to ending the expensive use of hotels for asylum seekers, costing nearly £7 million a day. We recognise the need to take urgent action and will look at all available options for looking at reducing the use of hotels, including alternative sites and vessels. Asylum seekers will be in basic, safe and secure accommodation appropriate for this purpose, while providing value for money for the taxpayer. We are working closely to listen to the local communities’ views and to reduce the impact of these sites, including through providing on-site security and financial support.
Amendment 139, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, effectively seeks to transfer responsibility for the UK asylum system—the national referral mechanism, which considers and provides safe and legal routes and other similar functions—to the FCDO. She acknowledged that this is a probing amendment and put her case. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, gave a rather better explanation than I will give, but I will attempt to explain the status quo. The Home Office is responsible for all aspects of control of the UK border. Managing and controlling legal and illegal migration into the UK, including processing asylum claims and the designation and operation of safe and legal routes, are part and parcel of this strategic function. Different parts of the system cannot, and should not, be considered and managed in isolation.
To take one example, as we have previously debated, our capacity to admit people to the UK through safe and legal routes is impacted by the level of illegal migration, so hiving off aspects of immigration policy and operations to a separate department is a recipe for confusion, disjointed policy-making and ineffective operations. The migration and borders system is highly complicated and this change would serve only to add unnecessary complexity. However, I assure the noble Baroness that the Home Office already works closely with other government departments, including the FCDO, on all cross-cutting matters to ensure that relative interests are considered accordingly during the development and implementation of immigration and asylum policy, and it will continue to do so.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. He was quite right about this being a probing amendment to demonstrate the importance of the joined-upness of this being over here and that over there. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is doing his old department a great service in dodging that particular bullet. The Minister talked about respective competencies and so on, so the Foreign Office should keep doing foreign affairs, including negotiating treaties, for example. Why did the Home Secretary and the Home Department negotiate the Rwanda pact, as opposed to leaving treaty negotiation to the Foreign Office? That came into my mind because the Minister mentioned the Rwanda agreement in the context of the impact assessment. Just to help him, I suggest that the impact assessment should be provided on the basis that the Government believe they will succeed in the litigation, so the impact assessment could be produced without delay on the predication that the Government are confident that their litigation will succeed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will certainly ensure that the noble Baroness’s points are noted in the department.
Finally, Amendment 139FD would place a duty on the Home Secretary to publish quarterly statistics on the Bill’s operation after it is enacted. Again, I have no issue with the basic premise underpinning the amendment. We already publish a raft of immigration statistics on a quarterly basis and I have no doubt that these regular publications will be augmented to report on what is happening under this Bill once it is commenced. We will consider carefully what data it is appropriate to record and publish as part of our implementation planning. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and his Front-Bench colleagues in the other place will not be slow to press the Government for the kind of data referenced in the amendment.
I and my ministerial colleagues, in particularly my indefatigable noble friend Lord Murray, have heard loud and clear the calls from around the Committee that the economic impact assessment for the Bill should be available to your Lordships before the start of Report. My noble friend has committed to updating the House before the first day of Report and I have already read out the Home Secretary’s comments from this morning. However, having had this opportunity to debate the issue again, together with the other issues addressed in these amendments, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on the question of a secret plan or no plan, the announcement that came out the other day—it was almost not an announcement —that the provision about two classes of asylum seekers in last year’s Bill had been ditched suggests that there is no plan. On the question of external management consultants, I am not a particular fan of management cons; there has not been a success story so far, has there? My noble friend Lord Scriven’s reference to the ICIBI report was absolutely on point: reports from the ICIBI, the National Audit Office and so on do not seem to lead to any change, so one has to try something.
I am left with a very big query: why can the impact assessment not cover variables? It should address the “what ifs”. As I am reminded, it is required to provide options, and over the years I have seen so many impact assessments that do provide options: “if such and such, then so and so”. The Home Office is well on the way to out-Rumsfelding Rumsfeld. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“Asylum seekers’ right to workThe Secretary of State must make regulations providing that adults applying for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I was pleased to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, who added another sensible and rational Conservative Back-Bench voice to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Good heavens, I have just remembered that they are both former MEP colleagues of mine—not from the same political group, obviously—and perhaps that is where they learned a sensible approach to policy.
At first blush, the inclusion of this amendment with others about the asylum backlog might not seem the right context, but the rationale of the grouping is that, with such a big asylum backlog, the impact of not allowing asylum seekers to work is all the greater; not only are more people left to stew, unable to support themselves, but for longer. Some people wait not only months but years—many years in some cases—for resolution of their asylum claims.
To pick up something I said earlier, all of these attempts—most of them from the opposition parties but not entirely; there was lots of contribution from the Cross Benches—are trying, perhaps in a piecemeal way, to construct a more sensible asylum policy than is in this Bill or last year’s Bill. Many of us think that the Bill is not designed to work and that the mess will, I fear, be dumped on the next Government—I see the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, smiling. The Bill is designed to get the Government through the next election.
Some of us are trying to suggest elements of a more sane asylum policy—the Government could, with all the information resources at their disposal, go out and put a case to the public for why you need more sensible things to manage asylum. That is where this amendment, on the ability of asylum seekers to work, fits in. I happen to have put in the amendment that it would be after three months, but I am not particularly insistent on the time—it could be six months. The point is that, after the initial processing, and people having the ability to focus on something else, it makes sense to put people to work and give them the opportunity to contribute.
At the moment, people seeking asylum in the UK are effectively prohibited from working, such that they are forced to subsist on asylum support of £5.66 a day while they wait for a decision on their asylum claim. A lot of the public assume that such people are able to access welfare benefits and are just sitting idly in clover, but that is far from the case. They can apply for permission to work only if they have waited for a decision for over 12 months, and only for jobs on the Government’s highly restrictive shortage occupation list. This has not always been the case: until 2002, people were able to apply for permission to work if they had waited for a decision for more than six months, and only in 2010 was the right to work restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list. Today, almost seven in 10 people who are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim have been waiting for more than six months.
This forced inactivity is totally at odds with government policy, which, in most instances, aims to move people away from any kind of dependency and into work. It also increases the difficulty of integration for those who are eventually permitted to stay. I remember as an MEP dealing with a refugee from the Middle East. I never saw the end result of his case, but he came to me after about three and a half years. He was a doctor, but his skills were obviously deteriorating and he was losing status in his family because he could not support them, and generally he was in a very deteriorated state—mentally, physically and in his whole ability to live any kind of decent life. That is a personal and social tragedy.
Not being able to work increases the difficulty of integration for those eventually permitted to stay and puts an unnecessary cost on the public purse, even with £5.66 a day. The Lift The Ban coalition, which I applaud for its campaigning, estimates that reform of this policy could lead to a gain to the public purse of almost £200 million, about three-quarters of which would be from tax and national insurance contributions. A study by British Future found that 71% of the public supports the right to work after six months—my amendment says three months but, as I say, I am not hung up on that figure. One of the members of the Lift the Ban coalition is the CBI. I heard its new director-general, Rain Newton-Smith, on the Laura Kuenssberg Sunday morning programme the Sunday before last, calling for asylum seekers to be able to work, so this is not just the cause of those with a lefty-liberal axe to grind. Mind you, I look at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and I would not dare put him in that category. It is because it makes sense, and makes sense for employers.
We have seen articles in the Financial Times saying the same thing. An article in Mach said that it is
“a human disaster for the refugees involved, and it hurts the economic prosperity of the places where asylum seekers live while waiting to have their claims processed”.
Another article of just over a year ago, under the headline,
“Keeping asylum seekers in limbo is bad for everyone”,
said:
“‘Human capital’ is damaged when people are shut out of labour markets”.
The article also made the point that:
“The UK stands out internationally for its reluctance to let asylum seekers work. In the EU”—
I remember, because I worked on that directive, and there was a fight over it—
“the law specifies they must be allowed access to the labour market after a maximum of nine months”.
The UK, which could choose whether to opt in, refused to opt in to that directive, for reasons that we will come to. The article continued by pointing out that many countries have shorter periods, with Sweden giving immediate access to its labour market, while Portugal puts just a one-month stay on it.
The argument for reform is that it would ensure that many people seeking asylum who have skills and experience in keyworker roles and the desire to contribute are able to do so. I know that we sometimes overuse the phrase no-brainer, but I suggest that this is one of those.
Another point is made by Professor David Cantor, director of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London, who says that the Government’s approach seems designed to push refugees into illegality. He asks:
“Why would a refugee present herself in good faith to the authorities on arrival, or stay in touch afterwards, if there is no prospect of protection, only detention and lack of status? If released on bail, why not simply disappear into irregularity?”
The ability to work would keep people plugged into the system, paying tax and national insurance, and they would necessarily be in touch with the Home Office—they would also have an incentive. They would not disappear into the shadows, but come forward and lawfully await the determination of their claim. That would put more order and sense into the system.
In January, the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, replied to the following oral question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard:
“Would the Minister agree that it would be better if those waiting in that internal queue were able to work—better for them, the Exchequer and the country?”—
very succinct. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, said:
“I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. It is clear that one of the major pull factors for people crossing the channel is that they hope to work in Britain”.—[Official Report, 17/1/23; col. 1700.]
This is replicating a debate that we had on the Nationality and Borders Bill last year. I should have mentioned it at the beginning, but in that debate, we were discussing an amendment led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She told me earlier that she would have liked to be here to participate in the debate today because she continues, with admirable consistency, to support this cause, but she unfortunately had another commitment that she had to go to. However, I remember —and I am afraid that I am going to repeat—a citation that I made a year or so ago of the report from the Migration Advisory Committee. That is an independent committee that advises the Government. In a report of December 2021—some of us know this bit by heart—it took issue with the Home Office’s assertion about a pull factor. The report concluded:
“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made”.
In other words, it is not made by making unsubstantiated assertions that every other commentator rebuts.
Indeed, the Home Office itself rebutted that assertion in a research report from September 2020 called Sovereign Borders: International Asylum Comparisons Report. It was produced by a unit called Home Office Analysis and Insight, and delightfully subtitled, Informing Decisions Through Evidence—which is what I think many of us would like the Home Office to do. One of its conclusions was:
“Economic rights do not act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. A review of the relationship between Right to Work and numbers of asylum applications concluded that no study reported a long-term correlation between labour market access and destination choice … Denied the right to work, many migrants may be forced to turn to clandestine work in highly insecure jobs in both the formal and informal labour markets to meet their basic needs”.
Perhaps it is not surprising that this report was labelled “Official Sensitive”, since if it got out into the public domain, it would be used to undercut the Government’s completely unsubstantiated assertions that the pull factor is the reason why they will not allow asylum seekers to work. Their own internal research, along with the independent Migration Advisory Committee, says: “You haven’t got a leg to stand on”.
There is no argument, except a gesture politics one, against allowing asylum seekers to work. Allowing people to work presses so many buttons in terms of their own personal well-being, the well-being of society and the well-being of the Exchequer. I hope that I will hear something positive from the Minister about this subject.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My name is on Amendment 133, and I had planned to make a speech debunking our friend the pull factor. Unfortunately, my speech has just been made rather brilliantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Let me try something slightly different on the Government: since we last debated this issue during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act, the economic arguments for allowing asylum seekers the right to work have surely strengthened considerably. Our productivity problem is greater than it then was.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, at an earlier stage in our debates on the Bill, I referred to the fact that I am a member of the Woolf Institute’s Commission on the Integration of Refugees, which is declared in the register of interests.
I and some other Members of both Houses of Parliament have had the advantage of going to a number of meetings where those with lived experience of applying for asylum and achieving it have told us about their experience. Unanimously, they say that being unable to work while there has been work obviously available for them has been the most dispiriting experience. It is the thing that has driven them—most of them young people with considerable skills, and some with professional and technological qualifications—near to total despair. It seems entirely unreasonable that they should not be able to work when, as my noble friend has said, there is clearly work available and the pull factor has been shown to be non-existent.
The other thing that people with lived experience have mentioned is the lack of availability of higher education in particular in some areas. I invite Ministers to take account of that issue too.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name to it. She regrets that she cannot be here today; she is actually working with the Woolf Institute’s independent commission on refugee integration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords who have eloquently made the case for the amendment already.
As it stands, the Bill makes the case for a right to work for some asylum seekers more important than ever. Of course, it is a theme that has come up already. There is little prospect of potential removals being able to keep pace with the large population of asylum seekers who will be deemed inadmissible in the future, and currently we have a huge backlog. We risk the creation of a permanent underclass. Apart from the deleterious effects, that drives some of those people into the grey and black economies because they are not allowed to work openly.
In principle, there may be a grain of evidence on the pull factors but not very much at all, as has been noted already. Allowing a subset of asylum seekers to work does not undermine the duty on the Secretary of State to remove people or open up any path to citizenship or leave to remain. If the Government are able to deliver on their own timelines for processing people and deeming that they are refugees, or should be removed, not a single person will ever attain the right to work under the amendment. We ought to consider the amendment as nothing more than a failsafe aimed only at those who have been here far too long without the ability to support themselves easily and who wish to work and contribute to their own welfare, that of their local community and sometimes that of their family, back in the land they have come from, who are sometimes in semi-hiding.
I think of a friend of mine—I will share a bit of the story, but I do not want to identify them in any way—who has been given the right to work because their claim was not dealt with within 12 months. Because of the inefficiency of the system, it took nearly 12 months after that for them to be told they had the right to work. They are now working in the care sector, way below the level of qualifications and experience they have in their life; they could potentially offer huge amounts to this country. They fled because of persecution. What do they do with most of their money? They pay tax and so on, but they send most of it back to the home country to support their family who are in semi-hiding. It enables their dignity to feel able to support their family, as well as taking part in the life of the community and feeling they are contributing to a country that, they still hope, will welcome them.
This is entirely in line with Conservative economic arguments. It is in line with everything in the universal credit system about encouraging people into work and supporting themselves. Please, it is time to agree to this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I well remember a speech made on my first day in Parliament in 1970, on the Queen’s Speech. Sir John Nott was speaking; he was moving the Address, and I have never forgotten his remark that the real poor of the 20th century are those without hope. The same applies to the 21st century. We are dealing with a group of people who are pretty close to being without hope, and one thing that can give people a bit of hope is the opportunity to put something back into the community of which they wish to become a part. Therefore, it seems to me that the prohibition on working is consistent neither with Conservative principles, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out a few moments ago, nor with any principle of humanity. That is what we are really talking about today.
I hope there will be a positive response here because the other point, and the right reverend Prelate referred to this too, is that if they are not allowed to work, they will tend to drift into the black and grey economies, and perhaps become victims of modern slavery. We all know of those who man car washes and other things, who work under excruciatingly difficult circumstances and conditions, and who are effectively the creatures of those who employ them. Is that really what we want? I do not think we do; I do not think the nation wants that.
Of course, we all want to see sensible control of immigration. We all accept that the country cannot receive everybody for ever. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, nodding vigorously at that point. But we are dealing with human beings and with people who deserve the opportunity to maintain their self-respect. This amendment is a little move in that direction, and I say to my noble friend who will reply that it would be entirely consistent with our Conservative principles of self-help and self-improvement to adopt an amendment along these lines, preferably a government amendment on Report.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I will not make the speech I was going to, because all the points I planned to make have been made. In the early hours of yesterday morning, I criticised the Minister for not listening to what had been said. There is sometimes repetition because of a hope that it will eventually be heard.
We have heard such powerful arguments today, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has expressed the humanity behind this amendment. We have heard that giving the right to work is about human dignity, and we have heard about people with lived experience of that. They keep asking why they cannot do paid work and saying, “This is what we want to do”.
I am pleading to the Minister to put away whatever briefing he has been given, which talks about pull factors and so forth, and address the points that have been made in this debate.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, some very powerful remarks have been made in this short debate so far, some of which I will respond to in a moment. At the start of my contribution, it is important to emphasise an obvious statement of fact that bears repetition: the Bill is about dealing with immediate and urgent issues—the current situation in which we find ourselves and the practice of boats crossing the channel. This has to stop, as it is unacceptable not just on the basis of illegal entry into the country by that route being wrong in principle but because of the threat to life involved in those journeys.
Often, important and powerful points are made as if we can just deal with them quickly or with them and bigger issues at the same time. I support what the Government are trying to do here: they are trying to deal with an immediate issue. Through this legislation, I would like the Government to deal—as I think they are trying to do—with that problem, which is vexing not just the Government but the country at large. It is causing a widespread sense of concern and disquiet. Once that has been dealt with and we are on top of the issue, some of the topics raised in these debates will merit proper consideration and further thought.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said in her opening remarks on this group—and I have heard her say it many times, as have other noble Lords who are raising objections to the Bill—that one of the problems with the Government’s approach to this legislation is that the assumption is being made that those claiming asylum must be accepted as asylum seekers and cannot be defined in any other way. Somehow, the fact that a lot of people are concerned by the legitimacy of that claim is not acceptable to many noble Lords. As I said at Second Reading—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I hesitate to interrupt the noble Baroness as I will have a right of reply after the Minister, but I do not think I have said any such thing. I did not say that everybody who crosses the channel or comes in another way irregularly is entitled to refugee status. Obviously, they are defined as refugees under the refugee convention, but if they are seeking status in the UK, they have to go through a process and those who do not qualify should be removed—deported. That is what a rational, fair and proper asylum procedure looks like. Our objection to the Bill is its refusal to admit anybody to the determination process. I have never said, nor have any of my noble friends, that everybody who arrives should be allowed to stay, under whatever status. Of course you cannot run an asylum system in that way and we have never said that.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
What the noble Baroness does through many of her contributions is argue against anybody using the terminology “illegal immigrant” by virtue of the fact that they have come via that route and have claimed asylum. My understanding of what she is arguing is that their status as an asylum seeker should be accepted by virtue of the fact that they have made that claim.
I said at Second Reading that I based my remarks on conversations that I have had with people who work alongside immigrants in workplaces which are very different from the one we spend our time in. I said that if there was one way I could define the main message that they were seeking to make clear to me and to this House and to Parliament as we consider this legislation—I am quoting myself here—it was:
“Don’t assume or believe that everyone attempting to enter our country illegally is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution”. —[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1814.]
I said that because I think that some of the arguments being made about being able to work are based on a desire for us to address that in a context where the noble Baroness’s perception of the situation is rather different from that of other people.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, invoked economic and productivity arguments in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work. Again, I can see where he is coming from and I do not in any way disagree with him or any noble Lord about the hard-working nature or enterprising disposition of people who come to this country. That is not something I would enter into any kind of discussion about. But I think that if we are going to raise economic arguments as a reason for the Government to accept these amendments and allow asylum seekers, at this current moment in time, to work in the way proposed, we must also remember that we have 5 million people on out-of-work benefits at a time when there is a record number of job vacancies.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
There are not 5 million people out of work on benefits. Universal credit applies to large numbers of people in work as well as out of work.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
The information I have is that there are 5 million people receiving out-of-work benefits. In my view, if they are qualifying for these, they are therefore out of work.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I will give way in a moment; let me just finish the point I am trying to make. An argument on economic and productivity grounds is not as compelling as some noble Lords are seeking to make it, given that, as I said, a large proportion of our current population are not in work but could be, and are in receipt of out-of-work benefits. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I appreciate that. Can the noble Baroness tell us what proportion of those people are not in work because of chronic sickness, disabilities that may get in the way of being in work, and caring responsibilities?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I cannot, and I am not here to get into a detailed discussion about that. I am simply trying to make this point. Noble Lords are raising the issue of productivity and the economy as a justification for accepting this right now in the Bill. As I said to the Committee earlier, there is some value and legitimacy, in principle, to some of the arguments being made. For instance, I would support the right reverend Prelate’s argument about ensuring that people who come to this country and are waiting for their application to be processed are able to make their contribution. However, we need to get to a position where the current rate of asylum seekers in the system is not that with which we are currently dealing.
Some noble Lords are arguing to be able to do both at the same time. Of course, I absolutely agree that the Home Office must be much better than it currently is at processing these things. I am not disagreeing with any of this. Unlike those noble Lords, however, I am saying that, for that kind of change to be accepted by the country at large, we have to take steps to get there. If you look at the bigger issue of immigration, part of what we are trying to do is to create a system that is acceptable and works for the country as a whole, and that everybody can have confidence in, so that they can feel much more in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would like everyone to feel and believe regarding the changes she wishes to see. We cannot do it all at the same time.
That is what I am trying to do. I am not trying to argue about pull or push factors; just that the Bill is about an immediate issue that the Government are rightly trying to respond to—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I will finish my point and then I will give way. I think that some of the matters that noble Lords are advancing should not be dealt with at this time. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder whether she will answer the next question with a yes or no, because I am confused by some of the things I have heard from her. If a job is available and an asylum seeker is the only person available who can realistically fill it, does she agree that, after three months or so, the asylum seeker should be allowed to take that job?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
At the moment, if somebody is still awaiting a decision on their asylum status or their status as a citizen or resident of the country, they are not eligible for employment—no.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I was not here at the start of the debate, so I am embarrassed to stand up and will be extremely brief. I just want to support very strongly this amendment. I have spoken over the years about just how ludicrous it is that we have asylum seekers here who cannot work, however long the Home Office takes to consider their application. This is an incredibly important amendment. I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the basis that surely this is one amendment that the Government should be able to support, and it will be in everybody’s interests if the Minister is able to do that.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Surely noble Lords can speak only if they have been present throughout the debate from the very beginning.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right—that is correct.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
The noble Lord may be referring to my having to rush out urgently—I needed to get a glass of water. I shall catch up with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which I missed with great regret, but I was back for the next one.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I do not want to be unkind, but the rest of us manage to persuade the door- keepers to bring us glasses of water.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
May I? Forgive me, I am normally somebody who is a stickler for us keeping to the Companion—absolutely, for sure. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can contribute to this debate having not even been here at the beginning, when my noble friend was here at the beginning and nipped out to get a glass of water, I think we can hear from my noble friend. If the noble Lord is minded to object, I would hope he would have objected to his noble colleague speaking.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for raising this interesting point and for her proposed Amendment 133. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent and deter illegal migration, and it provides for swift removal, with very few exceptions. Therefore, I am not quite sure why a new clause after Clause 60 is necessary, particularly because, in respect of applications for work from asylum seekers who are already having their asylum claims processed, as far as I know—I am subject to correction here—those are covered under the 2016 Immigration Rules. Part 11B sets out the policy criteria, which can be found in paragraphs 360A, B and C.
I will also comment on various noble Lords’ claims about the potential contribution that asylum seekers can make to the economy. Yes, there may indeed be contributions which can be made, but perhaps we should also consider the costs, the compliance costs and the fact that the UK is trying to move to a high-skills economy, where people with higher skills or where there is a need already can apply to work here under the normal rules. I cannot see why we need this amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I had not intended to say anything about this amendment, but I will say a couple of things. First, those of us who have met a number of asylum seekers have been very impressed by the high level of skills and enthusiasm for work that they exhibit. Secondly, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, I understand the point that she is making about the objective of the Bill, but it has a very long Long Title and I doubt my noble friend would have been able to table her amendment had the clerks not agreed that it was in order.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Excuse me? Somebody said, “For God’s sake”. I do not know who that was. Okay.
I am not trying to suggest to the Committee that the amendment is somehow outside of scope and therefore inadmissible—that is not my argument at all. If you want to describe the point I am making as political, it is perfectly legitimate to do that. However, I am trying to make the case, in terms of the political aims of the Bill, that I can see that it would be unwise to try to introduce something that the noble Baroness is seeking to do in this legislation—so I was not in any way arguing that.
To the noble Baroness’s other points about the merits of anybody who is claiming asylum in terms of their capabilities, I do not question that either. That is not my point. My point is that I want a migration system that has the confidence of everybody in this country, and I think that we are going to have to do it in stages.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness misunderstood my first comment. It was in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind my using her as an excuse but, on reflection, I think that I was unkind to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I wish to apologise to the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, shall I move on to Amendment 150? In fact, it takes us back to the previous group; I have no idea why it comes into this group. It would provide that the Act should not come into force until at least 28 days—I propose—after the Secretary of State has published a statement confirming the number of persons who, for a period of six months or more, have been awaiting final determination of their claim for asylum; and that, for not less than six months, that number has been not more than 20,000.
That may be a little circular and rambling but, basically, it proposes that we should get to a steady state in dealing with asylum applications. The periods may not be ones that noble Lords agree with, but I propose a figure of 20,000 people, which is not a negligible number of people. This amendment seeks to be realistic and provide a bit of—to our minds—common sense to the context of what we are debating.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lord Paddick—who probably had no option but to sign it. This is a serious amendment that follows on from the serious points made about the operations of the Home Office. It is the backlog that is the problem. So much of this debate has suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that the position that we are in is somehow the fault of those who are seeking asylum, which is not an easy thing to take on.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 150, to which I have added my name, and indeed to all the amendments in this group—I will be very brief.
Of course it is right that we should get the backlog down, and of course it is right that we should have a steady state, if you like, and be able to operate an asylum system that is humane, speedy and efficient. It is none of those things at present and we do not show any great signs of getting there any time soon. That is one reason why we suggest that the provisions of this Bill should not come into force until that has been achieved.
I am, along with my noble friend Lord Carlile, a member of the Woolf Institute’s Commission on the Integration of Refugees. I am also Rabbi Emerita of the West London Synagogue, which runs a drop-in for asylum seekers on a regular basis and has done for more than 10 years. I also chair a small family charity that provides scholarships for young asylum seekers to access education, which they otherwise could not do because they cannot get student loans. The reason I raise those things is that they mean that I talk to quite a lot of asylum seekers, for a variety of different reasons. I have never yet met an asylum seeker who has managed to get to this country who does not want to work or is not willing to work. Most of them are in fact very talented; the students we support are unbelievably talented and have been through absolute hell, but nevertheless show incredible determination and eventually get serious professional qualifications and very good degrees.
It seems to me that what we need to do in this House is look seriously at what we want to achieve by an asylum system. Surely we want to achieve the allowing in of those who are genuinely in fear of persecution, as well as all the other reasons that we allow asylum seekers in, and create a refugee system. In so doing, however, we want to treat people humanely, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said; his was a very impressive speech. We want to have coming here people who want to be here and make a contribution. We need to think quite hard about what we are trying to do. There is no pull factor, really—it just is not evidenced—but there is a very large number of desperate people seeking asylum in this country. Those who are genuine and can prove it should be treated humanely, accepted and allowed to work even if their full refugee status has not yet been achieved.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly only to Amendment 133, to which I would have attached my name had there been space. In the interests of time, I will overlook the other amendments in this group.
I do not know how many noble Lords took the opportunity of our lunch break to join the British Red Cross, which was holding an event with its VOICES Network downstairs. It was launching an excellent report that I commend to your Lordships’ House, We Want to be Strong, But We Don’t Have the Chance: Women’s Experiences of Seeking Asylum in the UK. A large number of the contributors to that report were at the event. It is of particular relevance to Amendment 133 that one of the first things one of them, a very senior medical professional—again, like the right reverend Prelate, I am going to anonymise this as much as I can to make sure that I do not identify anybody—said to me was, “I want to work”; we know how much need we have for her professional skills. Another, a business master’s graduate, also said to me that they wanted to work. These are people who are experts by experience, and that is one of the first things they say when they have an opportunity to speak to a politician.
I also want to make a point that no one else has made; I saw the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, earlier so he may have made this point already but I will make it in his place. In responding to the Migration Advisory Committee’s call for evidence in relation to shortage occupations in the UK, the Welsh Government stressed that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. Their submission said that
“asylum seekers bring with them a wealth of experience, skills and knowledge, and as such it is a missed opportunity to not allow asylum seekers to work. We urge the UK Government to reconsider its decision”
on this issue.
We have been talking in the abstract a lot so I want to draw on one other account—a piece of practical evidence of actual individuals. We have heard a lot about the housing of asylum seekers in hotels and, I am afraid, seen a great deal of horrific attempts to stir up xenophobia and local concern about that. However, I want to tell the story of the 100-plus asylum seekers who have been housed in a hotel in Thatcham in West Berkshire for up to a year. They started a litter-picking group, and then a broader volunteering group. Each charity shop in Newbury and Thatcham now has one or two asylum seekers there regularly to help out. They are a great example of people contributing despite our attempts to stop them doing so; indeed, they have won a local award recognising the contribution of their volunteering.
This is particularly relevant to Amendment 133 when we look at what those asylum seekers who have been litter picking and volunteering in charity shops are. They are doctors, teachers and engineers. They are making a wonderful contribution but surely it would make more sense to allow them to work.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker. The new clause proposed in Amendment 139FA
“requires the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from safe countries”,
while the proposed new clause in Amendment 139FC
“seeks to require regular reports from the Secretary of State on progress toward eliminating the current backlog of asylum cases”.
As of March, there were 172,758 asylum seekers in the UK waiting an initial decision on their case, with 128,812—that is 75%—waiting longer than six months. The backlog is so extreme that the Government have tried to quietly drop a key measure of the Nationality and Borders Act to speed up 55,000 people who have arrived over the past year.
The purpose of these two amendments is first to re-establish, if you like, the fast-tracking so that the people who are very likely to succeed in their appeals are dealt with as quickly as possible and, secondly, to monitor the situation to see how it is progressing. In the press I read that Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister, said he believes that reducing the backlog would increase the pull factor for those seeking to apply for asylum. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government’s view is that by decreasing the backlog you are increasing the pull factor? People taking part in today’s debate would be very sceptical of that, but I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that that is indeed the Government’s view.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, that the debate has gone far wider than the Bill and has been focusing on right to work and issues such as that, but what I seek to do in this brief contribution is to talk specifically to the amendments in my noble friend’s name, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group. On Amendment 133 in the name of my noble friend Lady Ludford, it makes complete sense to ensure that asylum seekers are not a burden on taxpayers as soon as practicable. If the Government do not agree, perhaps they should ensure that claims are decided within the three or six months suggested in the amendment.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham says, a lot of asylum seekers who are granted permission to work send money back home, as it were. Surely that helps to ensure that people stay in the country where they are and do not add to the problem of asylum seekers.
On Amendment 150, there is no point in creating an even greater backlog until the Government have addressed the existing one.
On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, fast-tracking claims from countries with high rates of success makes complete sense and any ongoing impact assessment should include the impact of the Act on the backlog.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, made a significant contribution and I hope she does not mind me responding to it. I think she is absolutely right that we have to bear in mind how all this is viewed by members of the British public, but we have already heard one noble Lord— I cannot remember who it was—saying that 77% of the public support allowing asylum seekers to work.
On the issue that the noble Baroness raised around job vacancies versus UK citizens who are jobless, the adult social care system cannot attract British workers, to the extent that the Government allow special provision for foreign workers to come in and fill those vacancies. The agriculture sector cannot attract British workers—for example, seasonal workers to pick crops—and the Government make special provision to allow foreign workers to come into the country. I do not know whether the figure that the noble Baroness quotes of 5 million is right, but the Government allow foreign workers to come in and do those jobs. Why can asylum seekers not do those jobs while they wait for their application to be decided by the Government?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I will let my noble friend the Minister respond on behalf of the Government to the noble Lord’s point but, as he was responding to what I had argued, I have to say that what he has just described makes my point, if I may be so bold.
I argue that, yes, there may be schemes that are authorised for the recruitment of people from outside the UK for specific jobs, but that does not justify that we make those who arrive outside those schemes eligible for work. That would make crossing the channel a route that is seen as attractive for those who might not want to come and do those jobs in particular but certainly want to come here for economic reasons.
As far as the specific working environments that the noble Lord talks about, if the problem in those industries is that wages are insufficient, whether it is in the care sector or the food industry, then I argue very much that the employers need to address the wage issues to encourage more people to apply, if that is part of the barrier to people going to work in them in the first place.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether she heard the evidence provided by my noble friend Lady Ludford from the Home Office report, which said that providing work was not a pull factor in the way that the noble Baroness has suggested.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group all relate in one way or another to the operation of the asylum system. They variously seek to enable asylum seekers to work after three months and to reduce the backlog of asylum claims, an objective which we all share. Let me address each of these issues in turn.
Amendment 133, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would enable asylum seekers to seek employment after three months. Asylum seekers are allowed to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list which, in turn, is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, about which we heard during the debate. The list comprises skilled jobs where there is an identified shortage which it is sensible to fill, at least in part, through immigration.
It is important that our policy approach distinguishes between those who need protection and those seeking to work here, who can apply for a work visa under the Immigration Rules. Asylum seekers do not need to make perilous journeys to seek employment in the United Kingdom. There are various safe and legal routes for those seeking to work in the UK under the points-based system. Amendment 133 would fundamentally undermine our immigration framework. Instead of people applying to work in the UK through the proper channels, this amendment would simply encourage them to come to the UK illegally or overstay on a visitor’s or student visa, and then claim asylum in the knowledge that they would be able to work after three months.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister’s assertion needs evidence. Sweden allows asylum seekers to work immediately, Portugal after one month, Germany after three months and Belgium after four months. Per 10,000 people per capita, there is no outlier in those countries with the rest of Europe, so what evidence does the Minister have that allowing people to work after three months is a pull factor, when the evidence in other countries in Europe shows significantly that it is not?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not agree that the evidence from the rest of Europe is any indicator of what might drive people across the channel in small boats. It stands to reason that, if people want to come to the UK to work, they may well seek to circumvent our asylum system by crossing the boats in small channels—I mean crossing the channel in small boats, rather than crossing the small channel in big boats. It therefore clearly stands to reason that it is sensible to refuse asylum seekers the right to work unless there is a delay of 12 months which is not the fault of that individual. It cannot be gainsaid that simply because we cannot produce evidence of what is going on in the mind of someone seeking asylum there is no reason to adopt the policy. I simply do not accept the logic of the noble Lord’s proposition.
My noble friend Lady Stowell made some pertinent points about the UK employment market that go to the difficulties posed by the amendment. I also very much welcomed the thoughtful speech by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. It is for all these reasons that the Government cannot support this amendment, and certainly not in this Bill, focused as it is on stopping the boats.
Amendments 139FA, 139FC and 150 all concern the current asylum backlog. We can all agree on one thing: namely, the need to process asylum claims efficiently and effectively, so that robust decisions are taken in a timely manner. We do not need new legislation to achieve this, and certainly not Amendment 150, which, quite inappropriately, seeks to tie the commencement of the Bill, which is to deal with the small boat crossings, to a reduction in the asylum backlog.
That said, I will set out the steps we are taking to reduce the current backlog. As noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pledged to clear the backlog of 92,601 initial asylum decisions relating to claims made before 28 June 2022, or legacy claims, by the end of 2023. We are making good progress. We have reduced the initial decision legacy asylum backlog by 17,000 in the past five months. We know there is more to do to make sure that asylum seekers do not spend months or years living in the UK, at vast expense to the taxpayer, waiting for a decision. That is why our commitment to tackle the backlog has focused on people who have sat in the backlog for the longest, often living in expensive hotels, while we process their case.
One way in which we will achieve that is via the streamlined asylum process which is centred around accelerating the processing of manifestly well-founded asylum claims. Another way in which we will achieve this is by grouping asylum claims by cohort. This means grouping asylum claimants and prioritising claims based on, for example, the type or volume of claims from a particular nationality, grant rate or compliance rate, and those on asylum support rate. This process means to conclude more efficiently outstanding asylum claims made before 28 June 2022 by the end of the year. This will allow decisions to be assessed in a more efficient manner. We have already doubled our decision-makers over the past two years, and we are continuing to recruit more. This will take our headcount of the expected number of decision-makers to 1,800 by this summer and 2,500 by September 2023.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but my noble friend referred to 17,000 claims having been processed. How many have been given permission to stay?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not have that figure to hand, but I will find out and write to my noble friend.
By tackling the backlog and processing asylum claims in a timely manner, we will address the issues raised by many noble Lords in relation to Amendment 133. I am sure we will return to these issues in the coming weeks and months, but for now I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response, although I feel that he slightly demolished his own argument. He claims that the asylum system and working should be insulated from each other. The logic of that is that no asylum seeker would ever be allowed to work, yet government policy has the extremely unsatisfactory rule that they can apply after 12 months to a restricted list. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said that the case that he knows of took another 12 months to get permission—yet more bureaucracy. All we ever get from the Home Office is more bureaucracy. The Minister cannot have his cake and eat it. If he does not think that asylum seekers should ever work, why does that government policy exist at the moment? It is very unsatisfactory.
Noble Lords have made some very good points. Like others, I much appreciated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who referred to “Conservative” principles of self-help and self-improvement. I would say that they are not uniquely Conservative, but they are also Conservative. That is why this policy makes sense to most people from all directions—on all Benches. It would help us have an orderly and well-run asylum system, as well as giving people the dignity and hope that have been mentioned.
I am afraid that I completely disagree with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said. The policy would not encourage people to disappear. By keeping people plugged into the system, and assuming that they are paying tax and national insurance and are known to the authorities—it would help if we had labour market inspectors—it would be easier to keep track of them. If they do not succeed with their asylum claim, they should be removed from the country. I am trying not to get even more grumpy than I am after many days on this Bill—normally I am a completely ungrumpy person—but the suggestion that I, or anyone else on these Benches, want some kind of free-for-all where anybody can come, there are no borders or regulations and so on, is completely untrue. I totally deny that suggestion; indeed, I rather resent it. I am sorry to say that I found the noble Baroness’s contribution valiant but unconvincing.
It is certainly true that I object to the term “illegal” being used to describe a person. I have long held that view. I do not believe that any person is illegal. You can say, if you must, that they have arrived by illegal routes, but the refugee convention, which, unlike some people, I rather admire, talks about “irregular” arrival because people are allowed to arrive in a country to claim asylum—so they have not made illegal entry either. It is irregular but not illegal. I am a bit of a stickler for terminology, and I stick to that of the refugee convention. I am not sure whether I have to apologise for that, but I do not think so.
I have probably said everything that I can. I think the Government are wrong. I hope a future Government will revisit this issue—not in the manner of the Government of 20 years ago, who withdrew asylum seekers’ right to work—and implement the sense of this kind of provision. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“People smuggling(1) Not less than six months before the other provisions of this Act come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report regarding agreements and discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken or agreed or proposed to prevent or deter a person from—(a) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;(b) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.(2) The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.(3) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 136 is one of a series of amendments we have tabled on the criteria that should be met before the Bill—an Act by then—comes into force. Amendment 136 is about people smuggling, though the term is not used; about
“(a) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom; (b) endangering the safety of refugees”.
The answer to most questions, of course, is to stop the boats. I wondered during the debate on the previous group whether “stop the boats” actually features as a phrase in the Bill. I do not think it does, but it seems to be the answer to everything.
People smuggling, the criminal activity which is so closely related to small boats and which the Bill purports to deal with, led to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause: the steps that are included in the Bill are not, in our view, an answer to the problem. I find it very distressing that, with such a serious situation, we have a Bill that implicitly blames victims, and we hear very little other than platitudes about tackling the criminals. We know, of course, that people fleeing by boat, endangering their lives and losing their lives, is not unique to the channel and the North Sea, which are referred to in the amendment. Geographically, we are most closely affected by those, but a lot of lives have been lost by people fleeing from countries bordering the Mediterranean and further afield.
My name is attached to Amendment 139F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. As she is not here, I will speak to it very briefly, because I think it would be a pity if there was no response from the Government, and I have no doubt that the Minister has a response—he is nodding. The noble Baroness’s proposal, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Carlile of Berriew, as well as by me, is that
“Where a person meets the … conditions in Section 2”—
which is the fulcrum, if you like, of the Bill; and I like the way it is phrased, rather than “meets the criteria”—
“and is suspected of involvement in genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, the Secretary of State is required as soon as reasonably practicable … to refer the person to relevant authorities in the UK for investigation and possible prosecution; … to cooperate with authorities in other safe countries and international tribunals who may be investigating the person”.
I look forward to the Government’s views on that and beg to move Amendment 136.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, a more sensitive soul might be somewhat disheartened, having sat here for a large part of this debate only for the entire Chamber to empty at the very thought of me saying anything at all, but I will do my best. Perhaps I am getting an early reputation in this place already.
I will speak to the amendment in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching, who unfortunately is unable to be with us but would have liked to have taken part in this debate had he been able to. There has been a lot of discussion about the Bill’s scope, and I was quite pleased to get this amendment through the Table Office, because it is slightly wide of what the Government are debating, which is stopping the boats. The Bill is about illegal immigration, and it is my view that a Government have an absolute duty to secure their own borders and to know who is coming into the country, who is in the country and who is leaving the country at any time. It seems extraordinary that there is still no passport control when people leave this country, as well as when they come into it. Only by knowing how many people there currently are in the United Kingdom can we have a proper, dispassionate and, to use that word, humane debate about what size we are prepared to let our population rise to.
The problem, of course, is with the official statistics—or rather the lack of them. The Government’s publication, Irregular migration to the UK, year ending March 2023, states:
“The statistics presented here relate to the number of people recorded being detected on, or shortly after, arrival to the UK on various routes. They do not provide an indication of the total number of people currently in the UK who have entered the UK via irregular routes or the number of irregular migrants present in the UK. It is not possible to know the exact size of the irregular population currently resident in the UK, nor the total number of people who enter the UK irregularly”.
The official population of the United Kingdom in 2023 is recorded as being just under 68 million, which represents a steady year-on-year increase. Some would have the real population of this country at least 1 million more. Then there is what I call the supermarket theory, which says that the real population of this country is many millions more. I have even read one report alleging that the real population of this country is not 68 million but nearer to 80 million. Of course, if you look on Twitter, you need not necessarily believe all those conspiracies.
My point is not to quibble about the size but to demand that the Government and their various agencies do more to find out the real population of this country. If the figure is 1 million or 2 million in excess of the published data, that, by definition, must mean that hundreds of thousands of people are living outside the system. How can they access healthcare and schools? What about national insurance contributions? What happens to them in old age? If they are outside the system, they are more vulnerable to low wages, abuse, poor housing, inadequate medicine and all the things that we take for granted. They are the losers, but so are we, as by definition they are not paying any tax, for TV licences or anything that people even on low incomes are obliged to pay. They are not participants in society; they are existing on the margins of it.
As it happens, I have no particular view on what should happen to those who have already settled here illegally. I am sympathetic to some sort of amnesty, but I am equally sympathetic to those who feel a sense of injustice that these people have in some way cheated the system—jumped the queue, if you like—and that they should retrospectively be subjected to the same rules on immigration as those who have sought to come after them. However, many of these illegal immigrants will be in low-paid and insecure jobs. Many businesses, certainly those in the hospitality sector, need these people. Indeed, because of Covid and, dare I say it, Brexit there is a critical shortage.
Equally, we must concede that many of those jobs could be filled by British people. I use that term to describe people who are here legally, regardless of whether they were born here or not. We need to be honest with one another. Of course, the argument goes that we need more immigrants to help grow the economy, but, equally, we should recognise and admit that the more people we have, the more schools we will need to open, the more hospitals we will need to build, the more investment in infrastructure we will need, and, critically and perhaps most contentiously of all, the more housing we will need to build. When we have done all that, and the economy has expanded, we will presumably need more immigrants to staff the increased size of our public services. That may well be acceptable, even desirable, but I believe that the British people should have the right to have a say on this. It is not just up to the politicians—or, indeed, if I might say so, the Church—to decide on the size of the population of this country.
I return to my original point. We cannot have an informed debate about this until the Government come to the table and lay before Parliament an annual estimate of the number of illegal immigrants already in this country. My noble friend the Minister will no doubt argue that this information is published, yet it is not published in a clear, unambiguous document—but it must be. Ministers and many others will ask, “If these people have been illegally operating in this country in the black or grey economy, how can we possibly find out who or where they are?” Perhaps identity cards are the answer. I am not convinced by that, but in this information-gathering world, where our data is increasingly harvested, there must be ways. Just look at the NHS app, which most of us signed up to during Covid.
Another approach—I am grateful to Migration Watch for suggesting this—would be that of residual methodology, which allows us to estimate the size of the illegal immigrant population by comparing a demographic estimate of the number of immigrants residing legally in the country with the total number of immigrants as measured by a survey. The difference is assumed to be the number of illegal immigrants in the survey, a number that later is adjusted for omissions from the survey.
I now turn to the second part of the amendment, which covers the issue of foreign national offenders held in our prisons. I am very aware of this because, when I was a Minister in the David Cameron Administration, we were all given countries to be responsible for. We were summoned regularly to No. 10, as he was trying to drive down the number of foreign national offenders and get them back to their countries of origin. It was an astonishingly difficult thing to do, not least because of the interventions of the legal teams who were trying to stop them having to go back. Further difficulties were from some countries which destroyed all the information about them, so it was very difficult to ascertain as to where they had come from and who they were. It is a difficult task, but it is an achievable one.
In March of this year, I asked a number of questions of the Home Office, which I shall not repeat now, on the number of foreign national offenders and how many we had repatriated. From that, it would seem that some 12% of the current total prison population of England and Wales—10,148 people—fall into that category. The cost alone of that is huge. The average cost of a prison place in England and Wales was £46,696 in 2021-22, so we are spending about half a billion pounds a year, by my very ropey maths, on housing these foreign national offenders. The Home Office must get a grip; we want more action and enforcement and fewer excuses as to why it is impossible to send those foreign national offenders home.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is not now in his place, rather unfairly described the desire from the Government to do something about immigration as an attempt to address the demands of the red wall—non-traditional Tory areas of the country which voted overwhelmingly for this Conservative Government in the last election. That is not a fair accusation; I think that the majority of people in this country want a humane and fair system, and one that actually works and is seen to work. Between 70% and 80% of the British public support measures aimed at deterring illegal immigrants from remaining in the United Kingdom. The truth of the matter is that none of us knows the scale of illegal migration because no official estimate has been published since 2005.
I very much hope that the Government will support this amendment, as I hope that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will. If they do not, they will need to explain why not. At its simplest, the amendment is to encourage the Government to find out, before we agree on the future immigration policy, how many illegal immigrants and foreign national offenders are in this country, and to publish that data clearly and unambiguously on an annual basis.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I follow my noble friend since I too am a signatory of this amendment. I thank him for what he said. I will not take up much of the Committee’s time in supporting him.
Essentially, we are inviting the Government to find out the evidence and bring an end to government by guesswork, particularly within this area of public policy. Government by guesswork creates all sorts of frustrations and unwittingly encourages some of the less humane members of our population to behave badly and, because of that guesswork, to hold some utterly unattractive views. I entirely agree with my noble friend about the need for a humane and organised immigration policy. Until we have the numbers, the Government can do nothing other than stick their finger in the wind and say that it is “probably this” or “probably that”. That is government by guesswork, and it is time that it stopped.
I will stop now, to save the ears of noble Lords and the patience of my noble friend the Minister. Having heard my speech at Second Reading, he may never want to hear from me again, particularly on this interesting Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swire and hope that the Government listen carefully to him. I hope that others in the Committee will come behind us and speak in favour of what my noble friend asks for.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I have for months been calling for more statistics from the Government and for the publication of the impact assessment. They join me in calling on their noble friends on the Front Bench to publish the impact assessment.
I would be delighted if we knew how many people the Government were detaining and removing. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made the point that numerous noble Lords have made all the way through: we have no statistics. Clearly, the Government have them and will not tell us them. I suspect that is because they are embarrassed or worried, or because it would set up some sort of mechanism by which they could be judged on whether they have succeeded or failed. We have all said it would be helpful to publish the number of people we are detaining, whom the Government regard as illegal, and the number we are removing. We have not demanded it for a year after the passing of the Bill. That would be helpful, but we are demanding to know now what the assumptions are behind the planning within the Bill.
Perhaps, just to help the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the rest of us, the Minister could tell us now what assumptions the Government are working towards as to the number of people they expect to detain under the Bill and the number they expect to remove. That would make that part of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire, unnecessary, and it would help our deliberations.
There is one further thing that would be helpful on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Swire. Before we had the cut-off date of 7 March 2023, how many people had failed their asylum application and were at that time waiting to be deported? It would be interesting to know how successful the Government’s policies had been up to that point in assessing whether people needed to be detained.
I particularly wanted to say a couple of things. I will leave Amendment 137; those debates about compatibility with various international conventions are well made, and we will return to them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for signing and supporting that amendment. I do not want that to be seen as somehow meaning that they are not important. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment, but the compatibility of the Bill with various international conventions has been debated all the way through Committee and I do not want to repeat those debates now. That is not to be taken to mean that those debates are not important; they are essential and will no doubt be returned to on Report.
I will focus particularly on Amendment 139FB in my name, which relates to our ability to tackle the gangs. There has been a lot of emphasis on victims, the potential number of asylum seekers and so on. These are government statistics. I repeat what I said earlier: the number of convictions for people-smuggling gangs has reduced considerably, has it not? Can the Minister give us an up-to-date figure on the number of smuggling gangs and a helpful comparison? Can he try to do us a favour by comparing with a year that gives a true reflection, rather than picking a year that gives a good percentage outcome? That would be helpful, because it is in all our interests to know exactly what is going on. Can he confirm my figure that over the last 12 months, the criminal smuggling gangs have made £180 million, and can he therefore tell us why so few people in smuggling gangs have been convicted?
As I understand it, there is some debate about whether the number of officers, officials and National Crime Agency staff working on this has gone up or down. Can we have an indication of the number of them involved in tackling this? My amendment deals with the National Crime Agency. Can the Government confirm that it is the law enforcement agency that is leading all this work? What other agencies, both national and international, are working to tackle the criminal gangs? My amendment says that to tackle organised immigration crime across the channel, there is a need to maintain a specific unit. Is a specific unit already in existence, making my amendment unnecessary? If not, would that help?
Essentially Amendment 139FB is a probing amendment to try to understand the current law enforcement activity with respect to tackling this heinous crime, from a national perspective but also an international one. I join the noble Lord, Lord Swire, in demanding from his Government some statistics, please.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I will speak briefly to Amendment 137, which I was pleased to co-sign, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. The amendment raises some important points in referencing Articles 524 and 763 of the trade and co-operation agreement.
Article 524, in the context of part 3 of the agreement on
“law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”,
is predicated on respect for fundamental rights and legal principles, as reflected in the European Convention on Human Rights in particular. That is one of the reasons. One would expect the Government to be very careful about any undermining of the UK’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights in case they, for example, undermined this part of the TCA.
Indeed, Article 763, which underpins the whole of the TCA—not just the law enforcement and co-operation part—says that
“the Parties reaffirm their respect for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international human rights treaties to which they are parties”.
That must also cover the ECHR. So, basically, our co-operation with the EU in the trade and co-operation agreement depends on our commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights. So it is not just important in the context of the Bill and generally but it is also a factor in the EU regarding us as playing a good- faith part in the trade and co-operation agreement. Undermining our commitment to the ECHR has to be seen in that context.
We benefit from a data adequacy decision from the European Commission, which means that data can be transferred between the UK and the EU. This can apply in the law enforcement and police co-operation sector, but it is also important to businesses, such as those in the City, those in financial services, those in fintech and others, particularly in the services arena. So there is a connection between respect for human rights and data adequacy decisions and business, because one of the factors that can be considered in the grant of a data adequacy decision—I remember debating this several times when we did the Brexit withdrawal legislation, and indeed I worked on the GDPR when I was an MEP—is the human rights compliance of the partner country, which is the UK in this case.
In fact, we commented at the time that that plays more of a role for a third country than it does within the EU, because questions arise about the human rights compliance of some countries within the EU, and it is finding it difficult to deal with them. Unfortunately or not, the UK is in the position of having less leverage in this respect. Believe me, the European Parliament will have something to say on this subject as well. The data adequacy decision gets reviewed in 2025, so the Government need to be careful that they are not undermining the data adequacy decision by disrespecting human rights.
On the situation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission points out:
“The UK Government’s ‘Explainer’ document on Windsor Framework Article 2 acknowledges that its protections apply to everyone who is ‘subject to the law in Northern Ireland’. Asylum-seekers are part of the community, subject to the law in NI and are therefore protected by the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity chapter of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. In court proceedings ongoing at the time of writing”—
about four weeks ago—
“the Home Office has not disputed the argument that the protections of the relevant chapter of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement extend to asylum-seekers and refugees”.
So that has to be considered in a United Kingdom Bill.
The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission also points out that, in the explainer on the Windsor Framework, the UK Government have confirmed that
“key rights and equality provisions in the [Belfast (Good Friday)] Agreement are supported by the ECHR.”
So, the ECHR and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework are intimately connected. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, along with the Northern Ireland Equality Commission, have identified several EU asylum directives—reception, procedures, qualification and the Dublin III regulation—as relevant to Article 2 of the Windsor Framework. They conclude:
“Given this analysis, failure to address compliance with Windsor Framework Article 2 in the Human Rights memorandum to the Bill is a matter of concern.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly, but I hope strongly, to support Amendment 139FB tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This amendment is incredibly simple and yet, it seems, immensely powerful. It gives the National Crime Agency a legal responsibility to tackle organised immigration crime across the channel and to maintain the specific unit to undertake work related to that responsibility.
It is surely extraordinary that the Home Secretary has produced a Bill of 67 clauses devoted entirely, as I understand it, to an attack on the victims of persecution, modern slavery and trafficking and incorporating every conceivable manoeuvre to prevent those victims achieving asylum in the UK. I think I am right in saying—and I know the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that not one of the 67 clauses sets out a plan to prosecute the criminals who demand large sums from vulnerable individuals to bring them to the UK in small boats across the channel at great risk to their lives—we know many of them die.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is doing the country a great favour, in my view, in offering, in Amendment 139FB, a way in which the Prime Minister could actually fulfil what he claims to be one of his top policy priorities—to stop the boats. I presume the Government will give tremendously strong support to this amendment, but whether they do or not, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is to be applauded for his amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for any confusion. Normally, the Labour Front-Bencher would be the last speaker but, when they have amendments to speak to, it is only right that we respond to what they have said.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we believe that the Government are wrongly focused on prosecuting the victims of people traffickers rather than the people traffickers themselves. Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 139FB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seek to refocus the Government on the real criminals in all this—the people traffickers.
Amendment 139E seems to make complete sense. I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, saying that the Government have the statistics that Amendment 139E wants them to produce. I am not sure that they do have those numbers. For example, the Government increased the number of countries whose citizens can use e-passport gates at airports, so in addition to EU and EEA citizens, citizens of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA can use e-passport gates. Once those people have passed through the e-passport gates, the Government have no idea where they have gone in the UK or whether they have left after the six months they are allowed under visa-free entry. There is no way to track where the people have gone, what they are doing or whether they are illegally employed. So I am not sure that the Government have those statistics. I absolutely agree that the Government—all of us—are entitled to know who those people are and how many are here.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Just to show how it can be done: may I just say that the noble Lord might have a point?
Lord Paddick (LD)
High praise indeed from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
We also support Amendment 139F and Amendment 137, to which my noble friend Lady Ludford has just spoken comprehensively—so I do not need to.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I see that the right reverend Prelate is absent from this place and not here to witness this outbreak of ecumenical harmony between two components of the opposition Benches.
I shall deal, if I may, with the points the two noble Lords have made as they emerge. I commence what I have to say on this group by assuring the Committee that the Government remain focused on doing everything they can to save lives, deter illegal migration and disrupt the people-smuggling gangs responsible for dangerous channel crossings.
Amendments 136 and 139FB, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, focus on tackling people smuggling. Amendment 136 calls for a report on the actions being taken to tackle people smuggling, while Amendment 139FB seeks to confer on the National Crime Agency a specific function in respect of tackling organised immigration crime. A variety of noble Lords have spoken to those points and, again, I shall refer to them in more detail as they arise.
The Committee will be aware that organised immigration crime, like other forms of serious and organised crime, endangers lives, has a corrosive effect on society, puts pressure on border security resources and diverts money from our economy. Organised crime groups continue to facilitate most illegal migrant journeys to the United Kingdom. The threat we are facing from organised immigration crime spans multiple countries, multiple nationalities and multiple criminal methodologies. Organised immigration crime is exceptionally complex, and the Government are working to tackle organised crime gangs that facilitate illegal travel from source countries to Europe and the United Kingdom. Addressing the threat from organised immigration crime and disrupting the organised crime gangs responsible is a priority for this Government.
I shall address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Hamwee, and—from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seeking information about the steps the Government are taking to tackle what the noble Lord calls the “real criminals”. The noble Lord is entirely justified in using that phrase. I will also address some of the points raised on an earlier group with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I can tell the Committee that we have a dedicated multiagency organised immigration crime task force in place which is committed to dismantling international organised immigration crime groups, including the criminal networks that facilitate people smuggling from source countries to Europe and then the UK, knowingly putting people in life-threatening situations. This task force is currently active in 17 countries worldwide and works with partners to build intelligence-sharing as well as investigative and prosecution capability.
I have an example for the Committee. In a single operation last summer, the National Crime Agency worked with French, Belgian, German and Dutch partners to target an organised crime gang suspected of smuggling up to 10,000 people across the channel over a period of 12 to 18 months. In total, the operation saw around 40 people being arrested, and 135 boats, 45 engines and more than 1,200 life jackets being seized.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the Labour Front Bench, sought information from me about convictions for people smuggling. The information with which I am provided is that, between 28 June 2022 —that being the date of commencement of the Nationality and Borders Act—and 31 March 2023, immigration enforcement arrested in excess of 385 people for offences under the Act, resulting in 166 convictions and the imposition of sentences amounting to over 110 years’ imprisonment. Quite properly, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, sought a comparator for the figure. I do not think I can give him a precise one, but I can give him additional data. I look forward to corresponding with the noble Lord to clear up anything that this has not furnished. Since 2015, there have been 1,400 arrests, giving rise to sentences being applied totalling 1,300 years’ imprisonment.
Following the pledge made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, on 13 December last year, to stop the dangerous small boat crossings, we have doubled funding for this task force for the next two financial years. The increased funding will aim to double the number of disruptions and enforcement activities against organised immigration crime and the criminal gangs that facilitate it.
But the Government must, at all times, be conscious of the need to remove the demand that keeps people smugglers in business. That is the core purpose of the Bill. We will break the business model of the people smugglers and deter those seeking illegally to enter the UK only by putting in place a system through which it is clear to all that anyone arriving illegally in this country will not be able to settle and build a new life here, and that they will instead be returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country such as Rwanda. The Government are conscious that the refoulement of persons to a country where they are in danger is unacceptable in terms of our international obligations.
Amendment 139F was briefly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It would require the Secretary of State to refer a person who meets the four conditions in Clause 2, and is suspected of crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes, to the relevant international authorities. The amendment is unnecessary, as protecting the British public is the Government’s first priority—the priority of any Government—and, in any scenario where a person is suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Government will work with international authorities as necessary.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said, but he may have overlooked that we had a debate, at a much earlier stage, on the way in which the Government use the word “require”. The Minister says that nothing in the Bill requires the Government to take action that would be contrary to our obligations under the TCA. He seems to be overlooking—the use of the word “require” perhaps deliberately overlooks the fact—that the Bill empowers the Government to take action which, if taken, would bring us into conflict with our obligations under the TCA. Perhaps he could answer that point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Could the Minister confirm whether he agrees with the analysis of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, from which I cited extracts, on the various EU asylum directives that would continue to apply in Northern Ireland? I am afraid I have not checked what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the other day, but the trafficking directive and the victims directive also apply in Northern Ireland. What are the Government doing to make sure that all those directives are going to be respected in practice in Northern Ireland?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, from the Cross Benches, submitted my use of the verb “require” to a degree of philological scrutiny, which I had not taken into account when preparing my answer. I take the noble Lord’s point in relation to empowerment as opposed to obligation.
I regret to say that, in relation to the complex interrelating commitments to which the noble Baroness sought my views from the Dispatch Box, I will have to undertake to correspond with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
I sum up what has been a short debate by thanking noble Lords for their informed scrutiny of what has been said, not only by me but by others participating in earlier parts of the debate. From the perspective of this Committee, at this stage, the issues have been given a good airing. Noble Lords have referred to the inevitability that we will consider the matter at a later stage but, at present, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the debate was not that short, but perhaps it was shorter than those on some of the other groups.
I will just comment on the Minister’s response regarding people smuggling. I find it quite depressing that reliance is placed on deterring demand rather than on deterring criminals. I wonder whether the strategy might include, if it does not now, a communications component. We are told of successful prosecutions, but I am not sure that I ever really read about those in the press; perhaps I read the wrong media—I do not know.
Though I have heard what the Minister had to say, to me it is the criminality—the smuggling—that is at the heart of the problem. I am sure that we will come back to it as an issue in some form at the next stage. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Secure reporting for victims of crime(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for the prohibition of automatic sharing of personal data of a victim or witness of crime for the purposes of section 2(1).(2) In section 20 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (power to supply information etc to Secretary of State), after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) For the purposes of section 2(1) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, this section does not apply to information held about a person as a result of the person reporting criminal behaviour which they are a victim of or a witness to.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent immigration data being shared for the purposes of section 2(1) about a victim or witness of crime who reports an offence. This is to ensure victims are able to approach the authorities for assistance without fear of removal under section 2(1) as a result of that contact or resultant data sharing with immigration enforcement.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Amendment 139A is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—who has managed to escape for the moment—has added his name to it, as has the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
This amendment seeks to prevent immigration data being shared for the purposes of Clause 2(1), under which the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of people who meet the four conditions. I am very happy to have my name to this—I would not have signed it if I were not happy—because the issue of exemption from the Data Protection Act is one which my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have raised many times since we debated the then Data Protection Bill. The exemption from restrictions on sharing data for the purposes of immigration enforcement or immigration control—I do not recall which but it amounts to the same thing—is a very wide exemption.
The concern here is to ensure that victims can approach the authorities for assistance without the fear of removal as a result of that contact, or of data being shared with immigration enforcement. Noble Lords have frequently made the point about people without secure status having more confidence in smugglers and traffickers than they do in the authorities. The traffickers’ threats are not ones that they will take lightly; they control their victims, notwithstanding that the victims have “escaped”.
We have a number of other clause stand part notices, all amounting to the fact that we oppose the whole of the Bill. The clauses which are listed in this group are not substantive clauses; in other words, they are not about policy. I will mention just one, which is about financial provision. I am alarmed—we all are—at how much will be spent on what we consider to be the likely costs of the policy. I will not go over them again. We are firmly opposed; I do not think I need to spend time re-emphasising that point. I beg to move Amendment 139A.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have two sets of amendments in this group. First, Amendments 142, 143, 144 and 147 seek to examine how the Brook House inquiry findings can influence the way in which the Bill will be enacted. Secondly, Amendment 139FE seeks to examine the devolution issues, which I will be looking at specifically through the legislation governing Wales and, very specifically, the Act of Parliament which I want to test the Government on.
First, my intention is to find out how the Government intend to deal with the recommendations of the Brook House inquiry when it reports and apply them to the changes that it will necessitate in the implementation of the Bill. Under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Brook House inquiry into mistreatment and abuse in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR at Brook House immigration removal centre was instituted in November 2019, following a judicial review proceeding. The inquiry has heard extensive evidence, and it is the first public inquiry into the mistreatment of those detained under immigration powers. The conditions of that detention provided a unique opportunity for public scrutiny of and accountability for detention practices and culture.
The inquiry, which we understand will be published in late summer, has heard evidence from detained persons, detention officers, healthcare providers, G4S—which was the contractor responsible for Brook House at the time—employees, Home Office officials, members of the independent monitoring board and His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons. The inquiry also appointed and heard from three experts to address the key issues of the use of force, the institutional culture, and clinical care provision and safeguards. It also examined a vast amount of documentary material and video footage.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 139A, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of London has added her name, and then I will turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I remind the Committee of my interests as laid out regarding RAMP and Reset.
As we have heard, Amendment 139A would prevent data about a victim of or a witness to a crime being automatically shared for the purpose of immigration enforcement. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London sponsored a similar amendment during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, and this issue remains hugely important.
Imkaan reports that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting their abuse. It is deeply disturbing that any person would be deterred from reporting a crime that they have been subjected to or have witnessed because they believe that their data will be passed on to immigration officials for the purposes of immigration control. This is especially pertinent for a domestic abuse victim, a modern slavery victim, someone who has been trafficked or someone who has been subject to violence.
In the context of this Bill, a lack of safe reporting pathways would be a major hindrance to the Government’s intent to “go after” the people smugglers who blight communities and destroy lives. Without the assurance of secure reporting to allow victims to come forward and report crimes committed against them, how will the Government ensure that they go after the perpetrators?
As well as a need for prosecution, we have a responsibility to victims. The Istanbul convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states in Articles 5 and 59 that victims of violence must be protected irrespective of their immigration status. It is crucial that we take all possible steps to comply with this and ensure that the right of every person, especially women and girls, to live free from violence is protected.
Since the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, there has been a call for the overhaul of laws and policies on police data sharing with the Home Office. The Government committed to reviewing this, but stopped short of committing to a firewall. Many dedicated groups have been campaigning on this issue for many years. The House of Commons Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft victims Bill, agreed with them:
“We call for an immediate end to the sharing of victims’ and witnesses’ data between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall for those groups”.
What is set out in Amendment 139A would not prevent data sharing between services where it is required—for example, in healthcare—but would prevent data sharing for the purposes of Section 2(1) of this Bill, namely removal. At a time when trust in the police force is low, especially for minority groups, we must consider the impact of the Bill on the wider community and ensure that, when someone is subject to or a witness of a crime, they can report it without fear.
I turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their support. I argue that this amendment is a common-sense proposal that offers the Government a procedure to ensure that statutory oversight of detention facilities and standards is maintained, without altering the Secretary of State’s power to detain on, undeniably, an extensive scale. The Bill establishes a comprehensive detention regime that many of us expected to have been consigned to history. It moves the system away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a wider system of incarceration intended to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the UK. Although this signals a major transition in government policy, there is very little detail on the standards, safeguards or protective obligations on the Home Office that there will be when providing detention accommodation. In fact, Clause 10 grants the Secretary of State the power to detain people “in any place” that she “considers appropriate”.
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the Detention Centre Rules 2001 will be updated in light of this Bill and that all immigration removal centres must operate in compliance with the rules, including any additional sites that are opened. But the Government will appreciate that these standards are not in the Bill and, given that there is very little oversight for the potential mass detention of people, it would be unfathomable to proceed with these provisions without a detention inspection regime on a statutory footing.
This is all the more important given the fact that this legislation overturns the long-held common-law principle that it is for the courts to decide whether the detention of a person is for a period that is reasonable or even justified in principle. The Secretary of State’s duty to detain does not discriminate and, in the absence of any return agreements, thousands of people—including children of all ages, pregnant women, victims of trafficking and those who are disabled—may be detained at the discretion of the Home Secretary for an unrestricted duration. I am afraid that I am not reassured by Ministers saying that habeas corpus provides enough legal protection to challenge detention, as it concerns only whether there is a power to detain, not whether the power to detain was exercised lawfully or is reasonable. Am I not correct in this observation?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 139B from the right reverend Prelate, to which I was pleased to add my name. I also support everything he said about Amendment 139A and thank Medical Justice for its helpful briefing. As the right reverend Prelate has stated, this Bill would dramatically increase the detention estate, with many vulnerable asylum seekers including children, pregnant women, and survivors of torture and trafficking experiencing the devastating harm that detention is known to inflict, particularly indefinite detention.
It is therefore imperative, as this amendment recommends, that the Home Secretary implements any relevant recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. The chief inspector plays an integral role in monitoring immigration detention. The most recent report noted that following its inspection of all short-term holding facilities run by Border Force, children were sometimes restrained unnecessarily or inappropriately, which goes back to an earlier amendment on the use of force.
Disturbingly, that report mentioned
“documentation showing how Border Force staff at Tilbury took a child to foster accommodation in handcuffs”.
The chief inspector stated that:
“The use of handcuffs for this purpose was disproportionate and unacceptable”.
As already noted earlier in our discussion, the provisions in the Bill risk situations where there is little judicial scrutiny of the exercise of the power to detain for the first 28 days of detention with, as Medical Justice notes, only extremely limited scrutiny thereafter. This lack of accountability seems to be something of a theme in the Bill. In fact, the detention provisions ignore previous findings from the chief inspector, including that detention facilities built and operated according to prison standards should be ended and that a time limit should be introduced.
In conclusion, I echo the right reverend Prelate. Given that the Bill is likely to increase significantly the numbers of people who are held in immigration detention, including groups in particularly vulnerable circumstances, it is essential to strengthen the chief inspector’s role. Will the Government therefore commit to implementing in future the relevant recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons proposed by the right reverend Prelate?
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 14th June 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 133-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (12 Jun 2023)
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 139B, to which I have put my name. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for outlining the common-sense reason why this amendment is needed, particularly as the Bill will extend detention, meaning that far more people will be in detention, and restrict people’s ability to appeal their reason for detention, particularly in the first 28 days.
I put my name to the amendment because I have a long history since I came into this place of asking questions about and taking a keen interest in vulnerable people who have been put in detention, particularly LGBT individuals. That goes back to 2014, when the then Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, John Vine, investigated the Home Office’s handling of asylum claims with people on the grounds of sexual orientation. Since then, every time an independent inspection has been carried out, issues concerning LGBT individuals being held in detention and experiencing homophobia or physical violence, affecting their mental health, have been documented, including in two reports in 2016. The latest analysis, done in February this year in a study for Rainbow Migration carried out by Dr Laura Harvey of the University of Brighton, shows that this continues to happen.
Despite nearly 10 years of me and other noble lords putting questions to the Home Office, it repeatedly says that action plans have been put in place based on recommendations made by these independent inspections. However, they turn out to be more plan than action. That is the reality of the evidence to date, so the right reverend Prelate’s amendment is intended to ensure that the action plans are indeed action plans based on the recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.
When the Minister responds to this group of amendments, can he say according to what criteria the Home Office decides to implement the recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on detention? What criteria does it use to ignore and not implement the recommendations? It is clear to me that, if we have an independent inspector going in and making recommendations, the Home Office should be under a statutory obligation to ensure that they are carried out. They are not political; they are not inspections which come with any preconceived prejudice on the part of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. They are independent and professional and they are there to ensure the safety and dignity of those held in detention.
I am very pleased to support Amendment 139B and look forward to hearing the reasons why the recommendations are enacted or not. I believe that this is a common-sense amendment. It does not stop the Government’s desire to expand detention in the Bill, but it ensures that the safety and dignity of those held in detention are paramount when the inspections are carried out and the recommendations are made.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support all the amendments in this group, for the reasons my noble friends have explained.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
The noble Lord has caught me out as I gather my notes.
Amendment 139A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke to, is about encouraging victims or witnesses to report offences. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham also spoke to this. I absolutely understand and support the sentiments behind that amendment. I thought I would reflect a little on my experience as a magistrate in Westminster Magistrates’ Court, where I remember that, about 10 years ago, we had officials from the Home Office sitting in our courts. They were basically there to try to pick up business to do with illegal migrants and asylum seekers, whether they be offenders, witnesses or people who just appeared in court.
It just so happened that one of my magistrate colleagues was a Home Office official—particularly, part of the Border Force organisation but within the Home Office. She explained to me that it was a pilot that had worked for three months, I think from memory, but which was stopped after that period because they just did not pick up enough business. It was not worth the officials sitting in court for that period. I thought that was an interesting reflection on the points which the noble Baroness made. I absolutely understand the point which she and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham made about people being reluctant to come forward, because of their distrust of the criminal justice system as a whole, However, my practical experience of that, as just described—and Westminster Magistrates’ Court deals with perhaps the most diverse group of people to pass through the doors of any magistrates’ court in the country—was that not a lot of business was picked up. That is my first reflection.
My second reflection is on Amendment 139B, regarding the implementation of the report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on immigrants in detention centres. This also goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, about the Brook House inquiry. Again, a few years ago I was a lay inspector and in that role I went to Littlehey Prison with the then chief inspector. It was an unannounced visit and extremely illuminating to see the prison itself, which was a sex offenders’ prison, but also to talk to the inspectors about how they conduct their activities and how important it is to have unannounced inspections. The way they explained it to me was that the inspections need to be, on the one hand, unannounced, but perhaps even more importantly, regular, and there need to be follow-up inspections. The prison officers and governors whom I met were very sure that they would be continually inspected over a period of time. It would be a working relationship with the inspectorate to try to ensure that standards were kept up.
I am sympathetic to Amendment 139B, as it is a process; it is not a one-off. I very much hope that the Government have confidence in their inspectorate to put in place, over time, an inspection regime which is in-depth and can do its best to maintain standards, while identifying any shortcomings it may see on its inspections. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee by going through Clauses 61 to 67 in turn. They contain entirely standard provisions, relating, for example, to the making of regulations under the Bill, commencement, extent and the short title. Instead, I will focus on the various amendments in the group and on the contributions that noble Lords helpfully made from a variety of perspectives.
I will first deal briefly with government Amendment 139D. This relates to the standard power in Clause 66(5) which enables the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make transitional or saving provision in connection with the commencement of any provision of the Bill. Amendment 139D simply enables such regulations to make consequential, supplementary and incidental provision and different provision for different purposes. Again, this is an entirely standard provision to facilitate the smooth implementation of an Act.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I am sorry to interrupt, but I twice heard the Minister say Amendment 139D, and I think he meant Amendment 139G.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Murray. I did indeed mean that, and I apologise. However, if I may, I will stay with the right reverend Prelate, because he opened the debate on Amendment 139A, which deals with data sharing in relation to victims of crime.
I understand fully the sentiment behind the amendment. The whole Committee, and indeed the whole House, can agree on the need to protect all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, guidance issued by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, updated in 2020, makes it clear that victims of crime should be treated as victims first and foremost.
The NPCC guidance provides that police officers will not routinely search police databases for the purpose of establishing the immigration status of a victim or witness or routinely seek proof of their entitlement to reside in the United Kingdom. In addition, police officers must give careful consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to what information they share with the Home Office and when to do so. The reasons for sharing information must be recorded and the victim advised as to what has been shared and why. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am setting up a paper trail of responsibility. I should stress that any data sharing is on a case-by-case basis, so, to that extent, I respectfully submit to the Committee that subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is misconceived in referring to the “automatic” sharing of personal data.
We should not lose sight of the fact that benefits may flow from sharing information, as it can help to prevent perpetrators of crime coercing and controlling their victims on account of their insecure immigration status. Moreover, providing a victim with accurate information about their immigration status and bringing them into the immigration system can only benefit them.
We appreciate the need to protect women and girls from threats of violence. All that being said, the Committee will understand that the Government are duty-bound to maintain an effective immigration system, protect our public services and safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation if that might happen because of their insecure immigration status.
Information is shared with the Home Office to help protect the public, including vulnerable migrants, from harm. The need for this was recognised by Parliament in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which permits the Home Office to share information for the purposes of crime prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution, and to receive information for the purposes of effective immigration control. As for the officers charged with fulfilling those duties, Immigration Enforcement has a person-first approach and will always seek to protect and safeguard any victim before any possible enforcement action is taken.
It is important to note that the mere fact that the Home Office is aware that a person does not have lawful status and is an immigration offender does not lead automatically to that person’s detention or removal. The decision on what may be the most appropriate course of action is based on many factors that require a full assessment of the individual’s circumstances, and evidence of vulnerability is an essential part of that assessment.
The public rightly expect that individuals in this country should be subject to its laws, and it is right that when individuals with an irregular immigration status are identified they should be supported to come within our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. The Home Office routinely helps migrant victims by directing them to legal advice to help regularise their stay. The NPCC guidance provides, I submit, an appropriate framework for data sharing between the police and the Home Office where a victim of crime has insecure immigration status. On that basis, I do not consider the amendment necessary.
Amendment 139B, tabled, again, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, would place on the Home Secretary a duty to give effect to the recommendations of the Chief Inspector of Prisons in so far as they relate to immigration detention accommodation. I start by making the general observation that recommendations by an independent inspectorate are just that: recommendations and not directions. It is properly a matter for the Home Secretary to consider whether in all the circumstances it is appropriate for her to accept and give effect to relevant recommendations by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. We naturally take very seriously all reports and recommendations by the chief inspector and have accepted many practical recommendations to improve our immigration detention accommodation. The Home Office regularly publishes service improvement plans alongside His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report on its website. However, on occasion, there may be good policy, operational or other reasons why it would not be appropriate to accept a particular recommendation, and it would be wrong to bind the Home Secretary’s hands in the way that Amendment 139B seeks to do. However, I assure the right reverend Prelate and others in the Committee that the duties to report will remain and that the existing inspection framework will apply to any new detention accommodation, as my noble friend Lord Murray said from the Dispatch Box at an earlier juncture of this Committee’s deliberations.
Turning to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, a moment ago, I compliment the noble Lord on his important work in the field of detention, in particular working with persons rendered especially vulnerable by their sexuality. I assure him and the Committee that the Home Office does not ignore, but rather considers carefully, the recommendations which come to it. Independent scrutiny is a vital part of assurance that our detention facilities are safe, secure and humane, and the Home Office carefully considers all recommendations made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons along with the service improvement plan which sets out the action that will be taken by the Home Office, and such a plan is published in response to any concerns raised.
The noble Lord, Lord German, spoke to two amendments. If I may, I will take them out of the order in which the noble Lord put them, so I shall start with Amendment 139FE. I assure the noble Lord that the power in Clause 62 to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation is commonplace. The examples that I put before the Committee are Section 205 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and Section 84 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
As the noble Lord knows, it is the Government’s contention that the Bill deals with matters—in this case, immigration—that are reserved to this Parliament rather than to the devolved Administrations. As we see in Clause 27, it may be necessary to make consequential amendments to devolved legislation pursuant to that reserved purpose. The standard power in Clause 62 simply enables regulations to make any further necessary consequential amendments to enactments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not comment on this regulation-making power in its report, and any regulations that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Lord German (LD)
The bit of procedure that I am looking for is whether the Government intend to do the proper consultation exercise, as laid out in the Cabinet Office directions about the way to manage that process, which is one of consultation and agreement rather than imposition. Two of these legislative reform memoranda have been laid already, and both concern that important section in the Welsh legislation on looking after children. In that area, we need some confidence that this will be a dialogue rather than an imposition.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I assure him, first, that the Government are aware of the legislative consent Motions to which he refers, but they are of the view that the LCM process is not engaged. None the less, I further assure the noble Lord that, although Clause 19 enables regulations to be made applying the provisions in Clauses 15 to 18, we will of course consult with the devolved Administrations—the process for which the noble Lord called—within the devolution settlement. In so doing, we will grant the respect that the noble Lord was keen to stress and the importance of which we on the Front Bench recognise.
The noble Lord also tabled Amendments 142, 143, 144 and 147, which seek to delay the commencement of the Bill until the current Brook House inquiry has reported. We acknowledge that these amendments are well intentioned. The whole Committee can agree that we want to see the conclusions of the Brook House inquiry, but, none the less, I cannot agree that the implementation of the Bill should be made conditional on this event, important as it is. It is worth adding that, as the Committee and certainly the noble Lord will be aware, this inquiry focused exclusively on one immigration removal centre, not the whole detention estate. Clearly, matters of great interest may well emerge and potentially apply across the whole estate, but I submit that we should not confine ourselves to proceeding on the basis of such evils as may be disclosed in this report and as are identified in a single case, rather than considering the estate as a whole.
As the noble Lord said in presenting his argument, the chair of the inquiry has indicated that she intends to issue her final report in the late summer, so the noble Lord and the Committee should not have too long to wait. But my point is that, as a Parliament, we should legislate from the general rather than the particular. Well intentioned though it is, the noble Lord’s amendment places the Brook House inquiry at the forefront and everything else would flow from that. I submit that that would not be the best course on which to proceed.
We will carefully consider the recommendations of this inquiry, including recommendations for that wider application to the immigration and detention estate and the practice of detention, but I submit that that is not a reason for delaying the commencement of the Bill. The debate has been interesting, and I am grateful to Members from across the Committee who contributed, but at this stage I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Just before the Minister finishes his conclusions, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked a specific question about the standing commission of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, which has carried out annual reviews of the effectiveness of Home Office policies and procedures with regard to adults in the immigration detention estate. The right reverend Prelate asked whether they would be resumed, and I wonder whether the Minister can inform the Committee whether that will be the case.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
First, I present my apologies to the right reverend Prelate for not specifically answering that question; I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of it. I had noted that I do not have the information directly to hand in any event.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I did actually close by saying, “If you don’t have it, would you please write?”
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Indeed, the right reverend Prelate did, and I confirm that I will happily correspond with him and copy in the noble Lord.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I moved Amendment 139A. The right reverend Prelate and I have often had our names paired on amendments on these issues. The story from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about Home Office officials sitting in court to see what they can pick up was truly shocking, whatever other conclusions one might draw about it.
I am unclear why it is necessary to apply the restrictions about sharing data, automatically or otherwise, when the subject is already detained, but I come back to my principal point—sadly, it is not the first time we have made it from these Benches—that we thought that the effective immigration control exemption in the Data Protection Act, and so much now comes within that, was far too wide and had dangers inherent in it. The examples given by the right reverend Prelate in the field of domestic abuse bear this out.
We have heard a lot about the Government wanting co-operation from victims with regard to the investigation and prosecution of traffickers and smugglers. It does not seem to me that not agreeing to a firewall is the best way to go about getting that co-operation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Beith) (LD)
Is the noble Baroness withdrawing her amendment?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I was just about to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Ten-year strategy on human trafficking(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling human trafficking to the UK through collaboration with signatories to the European Convention against Trafficking or any other international agreement on human trafficking.(2) The Secretary of State must make and lay before Parliament a statement of policies for implementing the strategy.(3) The first statement must be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act; and a subsequent statement must be made within twelve months of the making of the previous statement.(4) A Minister of the Crown must, within 28 sitting days of the statement being laid before Parliament, table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament in relation to the statement.(5) “Ten-year strategy” means a strategy for the period of ten years beginning with the day on which preparation of the strategy is completed.(6) “The European Convention against Trafficking” means the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings done at Warsaw on 16th May 2005.(7) A “sitting day”, in relation to each House of Parliament, means a day on which that House begins to sit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have a ten-year strategy for collaborating internationally to tackle human trafficking into the UK.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I introduce Amendment 139C, tabled in my name, and Amendment 144A, which is consequential to it. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for co-signing it.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to prepare a 10-year strategy for tackling human trafficking, in collaboration with international partners on this issue. A statement of policies for implementing the strategy must be presented to Parliament within a year of the Bill becoming law and every following year. Each time that a statement is made, an opportunity must be given for both Houses to debate and vote on it via a Motion for resolution.
The amendment, and my second amendment, relating to a 10-year strategy for an international refugee policy, are far from wrecking or negative amendments but seek to improve the Bill, as is our duty and right in this House. As I said at Second Reading, we need a Bill to reform migration and we need to stop the boats, but this Bill does not contain within it a sense of the long- term and global nature of the challenges that we face. To deal with global challenges, we need to engage in international collaboration towards global solutions.
The trade in people is one such global challenge. In 2022, in the UK, there were 16,938 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the Home Office via the NRM—a 33% increase compared to the preceding year and the highest annual number since the NRM began in 2009. The real number of victims in the UK may be much higher. Walk Free’s global slavery index believes that there could be more than 100,000 victims living in slavery in the UK. However, that same index found that, globally, 50 million people were living in modern slavery in the world on any given day in 2021 —a 10 million increase since the 2018 index.
Not all forms of slavery counted in this number will involve people trafficking, but a significant number will have been trafficked at some point in their story of exploitation. In the UK, we are often dealing with the very end of what is a global supply chain. If we want truly to have an impact on the root of the problem, we need to follow the supply chain of trafficking back to its source and target the traffickers there and at every step along the way to people eventually arriving here. A cross-border trade requires cross-border solutions. We have long agreed that when it comes to drugs.
The Anglican Communion has a helpful perspective here, as it is present in 165 countries around the world. There are Anglicans and other people of faith present in both source and destination countries for migration and trafficking. Since 2014, the Anglican Alliance has been working on these issues in partnership with the Salvation Army, Caritas Internationalis and the Clewer Initiative, among others, convening global and regional consultations, developing toolkits to equip churches, and establishing regional and interregional communities of practice. The global reach and connectedness of the Anglican Communion allows us to connect up work that is going on upstream and downstream in the supply chain, to help to ensure that migration happens safely and to prevent trafficking and other forms of exploitation.
The Clewer Initiative, the Church of England’s national work to combat modern slavery, has also been working since 2020 with the World Council of Churches to challenge issues of modern slavery. One part of the focus is to facilitate networking between churches and partners in countries of origin and those in countries of arrival to enable collaboration and broader strategy. Ending human trafficking was mentioned explicitly in the targets of the UN sustainable development goals 5, 8 and 16, to be achieved by 2030. However, progress has been slow, and as the UN Office on Drugs and Crime has highlighted, national responses, particularly in developing states, appear to be deteriorating. Detection rates fell by 11% in 2020 and convictions fell by 27%, which it says illustrates
“a worldwide slowdown in the criminal justice response to trafficking”.
I am sure that all in this Committee agree that our target should be the total eradication of this evil, and that part of the 10-year strategy being proposed here should be plans for collaboration with international partners to set up an international anti-trafficking force, funded by Governments and mandated with the authority to target and arrest human traffickers wherever they might be found. That would be taking action upstream, focusing on the traffickers rather than their victims—an incidental effect of this Bill—and getting us closer to addressing the root of the issue. We did something similar with 17th-century piracy and 19th-century slave-trading, where we led the world. This is an equally serious crime, and we must go after perpetrators with speed and accuracy and the full force of international law.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour for me to support this amendment in the name of the most reverend Primate. In opening my remarks I want to say that here we have a Bill called the Illegal Migration Bill. I say that the illegality which we should always address first is the illegality of the people who traffic those who are brought to our country —the criminals that we ought to be searching for, internationally and domestically. That is where the illegality lies, not with these poor people who are suffering and trying to escape from oppression and aggression.
Human trafficking needs immediate attention. It is a grave violation of human rights, and it requires a comprehensive, co-ordinated, well-thought-through and long-term response. That is why I agree so much with this amendment. It is imperative that we recognise the urgency of the matter, and that we take decisive action to protect the vulnerable and to hold those perpetrators fully to account. I hope that this amendment will be reacted to in a positive way by the Government.
I emphasise the critical significance of implementing a long-term strategy, as is proposed. Dealing with heinous crime requires planning, and this amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to develop a 10-year plan, would ensure a sustained and focused approach to tackle it. It is essential that we recognise the urgency and complexity of the issue, and the need for that long-term commitment.
The 10-year strategy also provides us with a framework that extends beyond simple short-term solutions. It will allow us to get involved with thorough planning, resource allocation and evaluation of effort. By adopting such a strategy, we send a powerful message: our commitment to eradicating human trafficking must be unwavering. It demonstrates our recognition that this pervasive crime requires a sustained and co-ordinated response—as I said, both domestically and internationally. Collaboration lies at the heart of the strategy. This amendment emphasises the need for the Secretary of State to work closely with partners elsewhere, particularly —as noble Lords might expect me to say—with our European partners, who are signatories to the European convention against trafficking.
Human trafficking knows no borders. By joining forces with other nations, we enhance our collective capacity to identify trafficking patterns, share intelligence and dismantle criminal networks wherever they may be. Through this collaborative approach, we can strengthen prevention measures and ensure that those involved in trafficking are brought to full justice. It is only through co-ordinated action and shared responsibility that we can provide protection to the victims, disrupt the networks, bring those responsible to justice and eradicate human trafficking from our shores to create a safer, more compassionate society for all. Stop the boats—of course we agree with it, but how do we do it? In my view, this amendment helps us to achieve it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and to add my name to the most reverend Primate’s amendment calling for a 10-year strategy on combating human trafficking with our international partners. As he said, the intention of the amendment is to encourage the Government to focus on the long-term, global nature of the challenges we face in relation to migration and to work collaboratively with international partners. The most reverend Primate is right to emphasise the statutory nature of what is being proposed. One hesitates to go through the list of Home Secretaries any Government may have. The need for stability in policy-making in this area and agreement with our international partners is very clear indeed.
Going back to Second Reading, a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were critical of those who were critical of the Bill. They said that we had not produced any coherent answer to the problem that the Bill is meant to address. But in some of the debates over the last few days, the lack of coherence in the Bill, the real unwillingness of the Government to be explicit about their intentions and the lack of an impact assessment, despite Cabinet Office guidance to the contrary, lend themselves to criticism of what seems to be a very short-term, dog-whistle approach. We really need to see an improvement.
The JCHR’s magisterial critique is, of course, outstandingly clear that the Bill will deny the vast majority of refugees access to the UK’s asylum system, despite the fact that there will be many cases for them to enter the UK by safe and legal routes. I thought that the debate earlier today around the definition of safe and legal—or, indeed, the Government’s unwillingness as yet to say what exactly they plan to do, and how they plan for people to receive assessment and, where appropriate, get protection—said it all.
We even have to await regulations, which in the end Parliament will have to accept, for a definition of “safe and legal”. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said earlier, the Government could have come forward today with deliverable measures on this, but they have made no attempt to place concrete proposals for safe and legal routes. As the most reverend Primate has said, we could play a leading role. Instead, we are condemning ourselves to isolation in the international community. This is an international problem, and we have to find an international solution.
That is why the most reverend Primate’s call for a long-term approach is so important. His remarks about dealing with the supply chain at source were very telling, focusing on the traffickers rather than the victims. I hope that the Government listen on this occasion and agree to consider this. In all the unhappiness that this debate has caused because of the provisions in the Bill, surely we must at least hope that we can find a consensual way forward to deal with the real issues instead of coming down hard on these poor, innocent victims.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the most reverend Primate has offered the Government a very helpful amendment. It enables them to show that their present Bill, much of which I deeply resent, is not just a one-off, convenient electoral activity but part of a properly thought-out programme for dealing with the issues with which they are concerned. We have to think about it in these terms. Otherwise, we cannot think about it at all.
I commend the most reverend Primate’s use of the concept of the supply chain. I spend a lot of my time advising people on supply chains in my business life, and I cannot imagine anybody who deals with a supply chain merely dealing with the last person in the supply chain. They go right back to where it starts to discover how it hangs together and then correct it if that is what they seek to do. The most reverend Primate’s use of that phrase is extreme valuable, particularly for a Government so committed to private sector and private enterprise, where the supply chain is so vital.
It is also true that unless we think about this internationally, we are not facing the longer-term situation we will find. I remind the Committee of my chairmanship of the Climate Change Committee. The problems with which we are faced at the moment are tiny compared with the ones we are going to be faced with as climate change drives more and more people from the countries in which they live. Who will try to benefit from that? The very people who run the present scandalous, wicked systems dealing with pathetic people seeking somewhere to live. We talk about people moving to have a better life. Climate change will mean that many people will move to have a life at all, because hotter weather in a country such as Niger will make it impossible for people to live, work and farm. In those circumstances, who will try to benefit? It will be the very people who are running these rackets. We have to deal with those rackets.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments that the most reverend Primate has put down and thank him, again, for initiating a whole day’s debate here last December on Britain’s immigration policy and the need to take an overall approach, a general approach, not just dealing with it like the little Dutch boy, running around sticking his finger in one hole in the dyke and another hole comes—that is what we are faced with with this Bill. The most reverend Primate is helping us to avoid the mistake of a patchwork approach, so I welcome these amendments. I think it is a shame, myself, that we should be debating this at this hour in the evening in a rather scantily attended House, just in order to save one extra day in Committee; it would have been much better to have had that.
The point that the most reverend Primate is making about the need for an overall approach—this long-term approach which Governments of both parties no doubt would stick to—must be the right one. The other point he has made very forcefully in this context is the need for international co-operation. That is also absolutely vital.
Unfortunately, as innumerable speeches in Committee have shown, there is a very strong view, supported by many outside this House and many international bodies, that the action in the Bill is contrary to our international obligations. That in itself is bad enough, but what is worse is that it is totally inimical to getting the wider international co-operation we will need if we are to handle these problems. If we insist on going ahead and breaking our international obligations, we will get zero co-operation from other countries which are also bound by them and which believe that they are being broken by the Bill.
I wish the Minister would listen to what I was saying rather than having a conversation. That would be very helpful. I will wait until he stops having his conversation. He has stopped; I thank him very much.
I think the Government need to address this point—oh dear, he is talking again.
If what we are planning to do in the Bill breaks our international obligations in the view of many of our closest partners—the ones in the rest of Europe, for example, without whose co-operation we will get absolutely nowhere with the measures being proposed—we are not going to get that co-operation. That would be extremely serious, with its knock-on effects on the trade and co-operation agreement and so on.
I hope the Government will listen carefully to this debate, on both the amendments in the name of the most reverend Primate, and see that there is a great need to go down that road.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to offer our support from these Benches. The most reverend Primate has delivered what I would call a swerve ball: he has gone around the side of what is being proposed by the Bill and tried to find a route for what will follow it. He raised the issue of the Modern Slavery Act at the beginning, which we have debated in Committee as being something this Parliament has been very proud of indeed. All of that has been put to one side in order for the Government to make these short-term decisions.
It is interesting that, on many occasions, Ministers on the Government Front Bench have referred to the Bill as dealing with an emergency, whereas they have not yet recognised the context that what is happening is a global problem. The interesting figures at the beginning of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report on the Bill enlighten us:
“In mid-2022, the UN Refugee Agency … estimated that there were 103 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. Of those, 32.5 million are refugees and 4.9 million are seeking asylum — the highest number since the UNHCR was created in 1950. This number is likely to increase given the deadly conflict that has erupted in Sudan”.
Over the page, it says that we will not solve this on our own. Treating this as an emergency will never satisfy the issue that the Government are trying to address of trying to deal with the problem at source.
The Government say that they will stop criminal gangs with the Bill, but many in the Committee believe that this simply will not happen. Many of your Lordships believe that the Bill, as it stands, is as a gift to traffickers, who know that their victims will be too frightened of the threat of removal to approach authorities.
The logic behind the most reverend Primate’s amendment is quite clear to us, in relation to trafficking. It focuses on efforts to tackle the traffickers rather than penalise the victims. What most of us find most abhorrent about the Bill is that it tackles the victims to try to deal with a problem that is well beyond its reach. I absolutely support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the supply chain process: it is just silly—not sensible—to think that it will work.
That is why we need a global and collaborative approach with international partners. That is what is needed when traffickers operate across national boundaries and borders. This amendment therefore addresses the question: what next? It puts co-operation front and centre of its approach and it seeks a role for the UK in which it is a leader, rather than a follower and a country trying to pull up a drawbridge. Trafficking is an abhorrent crime and we need to play our part in tackling the crime at source. It needs a global perspective and collaboration, rather than headlines with an election in mind.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, a 10-year strategy, implementation plan and associated measures are needed to tackle human trafficking, particularly, as the most reverend Primate’s amendment suggests, through international collaboration to deal with issues upstream and downstream—as the former oilman said. His experience of supply chains is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised a justified concern about the reluctance of other partners, who would be central to the success of such a strategy, if they believed that the United Kingdom were breaking its international commitments, whether regarding the European Convention on Human Rights or the European convention on trafficking. The most reverend Primate highlights the worrying slowdown in prosecutions for human trafficking, which must be reversed.
I have one concern about the most reverend Primate’s plan. I understand the need to establish a long-term strategy, but an incoming Home Secretary could thwart a 10-year strategy by asking Parliament to repeal any law that contains the provisions in this amendment. Sadly, enshrining a 10-year strategy in law does not guarantee its longevity, but it would make it more difficult to dislodge. That is why we support these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to address the Chamber briefly in support of the amendment before us from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. My points will build on the excellent speeches and comments that have been made.
As others have said, this amendment presents the Government with a phenomenal opportunity. All our debate has been very contentious and will remain so when the Bill is on Report, but here is an opportunity, in one amendment, for the Government to take a different approach in line with the 10-year strategy that has been laid before us.
Let me say this as well: the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right that this discussion deserves a wider audience. We ought to think about how we could generate that in the context of the Bill and perhaps in other ways to ensure that this issue gets the audience that it deserves. Why do I say that? I do so not only because I agree with it. Yesterday, we debated the purpose of this Chamber in a different context. We had a debate among ourselves and disagreement on the constitutional role of the Lords and what it should be with regard to legislation. As a relatively new Member here, I think that that is a really important role for this House to play.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the most reverend Primate for setting out the case for these amendments, which would require the Home Secretary to produce a 10-year strategy for tackling human trafficking.
I can confirm, of course, that the Government are absolutely committed to taking a long-term approach to this issue. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, we certainly appreciate that this is a massive global problem. Work on modern slavery and human trafficking is based on three strategic pillars: prevention, enforcement, and identification and support. I can assure the most reverend Primate that this Government are working tirelessly with our international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking. If I may, I will take just a moment to share some of that work with noble Lords.
The UK’s international efforts to fight modern slavery and human trafficking are supported by our overseas programmes, including through the Home Office’s Modern Slavery Fund—over £37 million has been committed to the fund between 2016 and March 2023. Projects across Europe, Africa and Asia seek to identify and protect victims from re-trafficking, strengthen national responses and criminal investigations and reduce vulnerability to exploitation. A snapshot of previous successes includes direct support to over 2,500 victims of trafficking and targeted outreach work to prevent modern slavery with over 180,000 vulnerable people.
Further, the Government have continued to strengthen our international co-operation. For example, we have issued a joint communiqué with Albania and signed a joint action plan with Romania, both of which reinforce our commitment to working collaboratively to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking, in both the short and long term. We continue to engage with the international community on a global scale by working with multilateral fora such as the G7, the G20, the Commonwealth and the UN. Article 32 of ECAT requires parties to co-operate in tackling human trafficking and we take that obligation very seriously.
The Government collaborate with law enforcement and criminal justice agencies, including the police, the National Crime Agency, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that policy and legislation are incorporated into operational policy and practice, to target and disrupt crimes and bring perpetrators to justice. In addition, the Home Office has continued to invest in policing to improve the national response to modern slavery and human trafficking by providing £17.8 million since 2016 to support the work of the Modern Slavery and Organised Immigration Crime unit, about which we heard in the previous group.
I also add that the United Kingdom is the first country in the world to require businesses to report on the steps that they have taken to tackle modern slavery in their operations and supply chains. This has driven a change in business culture, spotlighting modern slavery risks on boardroom agendas and in the international human rights community.
Strategies have their place; I do not want to downplay the impact that they can have in the right circumstances to help focus attention on a particular issue and drive change. But they are not a silver bullet. A strategy in and of itself will not enhance the collective response to a particular challenge. It is a moot point whether a 10-year strategy is too long a horizon in this area. The most reverend Primate pointed out that policies can change with changes of government—and, indeed, one Government cannot bind their successor. There is also always a risk that resources are consumed preparing strategies and monitoring their implementation rather than getting on with the vital core task at hand.
The Government remain committed to strengthening our response, both domestically and internationally, to combat modern slavery and human trafficking, and we are considering the next steps on our strategic approach. The immediate focus of this Bill, however, is stopping the boats. If we do not tackle and substantially reduce the current scale of illegal entry into the UK, our resources will continue to be sapped by the sheer numbers crossing the channel, necessarily impacting on our capacity to address the strategic challenges that the most reverend Primate has clearly articulated.
Lord Deben (Con)
My noble friend has very helpfully gone through a whole series of things that the Government are doing and will do. Why is he opposed to that forming a strategy? Any business would do it that way. No one would have merely a series of things which one can put out in that way. Why can he not accept that a strategy that you are implementing would be much better than a series of individual things which defend where you are?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that I have already—in the last few moments—outlined why it would be inappropriate for it to be in the Bill. The reasons are that, clearly, one can have strategies without them being in primary legislation and, secondly, it would not be right to fix a strategy for 10 years in length for the reasons I have given, not least because one Government cannot bind their successor. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Deben made some wider and insightful points in his earlier address about the drivers of refugee crises, such as the impact of climate change, those topics take us into the next group. I am sure there will be other remarks we can address at that point. I noted that my noble friend said that he takes the Church’s Whip; that might explain a lot.
Lord Deben (Con)
As my noble friend has mentioned that, I said I would take the Church’s Whip because I happen to believe that moral issues overcome any other issues. The Churches are united in saying that we have to be more sensible about this Bill. I am a Catholic; I take the Church’s Whip on this because it is a moral issue and we should stand up for moral duties.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
With respect to my noble friend, I would say that the Government’s position is the moral position, but that is possibly an argument for a different type of debate, so I will revert to the topic of the proposed amendment from the most reverend Primate.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The most reverend Primate’s amendment does not say what the strategy should be; it says just that there should be a strategy. Is the Minister really suggesting that another Government would say, “We’re not bothered about slavery; we don’t want a strategy on slavery”? The whole point is to get Governments to think strategically.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that this Government certainly do think strategically, but there is no reason for such a strategy to be required by reason of a statutory amendment. I appreciate that the most reverend Primate has laid this amendment, and I do not think that he realistically expects such an amendment to be accepted by the Government. What is clear is that—
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
For the reasons I have already given; shouting “why” from a sedentary position does not assist.
I am very grateful to the most reverend Primate for raising this issue. It is very important that the Committee has had a chance to step back and discuss these strategic issues in the way that it has. I am very grateful to him for affording us this opportunity to debate this issue but, having done so, I hope he will be content to withdraw his amendment. Of course, we will shortly consider the wider context of the refugee question.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Just before the most reverend Primate responds, what I heard the Minister say from the Dispatch Box was that the Government do not believe in strategy, not that the Government oppose strategy being in primary legislation. Perhaps I misheard him.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No, I certainly did not say that the Government do not believe in strategy.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, it is as likely that the Government did not believe in strategy as to find that a bishop did not believe in God.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Without wishing to channel “Yes, Prime Minister”.
I am very grateful, in addition to those who so kindly co-signed the amendment, to noble Lords who contributed to this debate: the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord German, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, really worried me, because every time he said something, I found it was in my speech on the next group. That is going to make the speech shorter, which is a great advantage, but it does slightly worry me as to whether he has a hitherto unsuspected hacking habit.
“Ten-year strategy on refugees(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises driving people to enter the UK as refugees through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees.(2) The Secretary of State must make and lay before Parliament a statement of policies for implementing the strategy.(3) The first statement must be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act; and a subsequent statement for the strategy must be made within twelve months of the making of the previous statement. (4) A Minister of the Crown must, within 28 sitting days of the statement being laid before Parliament, table a motion for resolution in each House of Parliament in relation to the statement.(5) “Ten-year strategy” means a strategy for the period of ten years beginning with the day on which preparation of the strategy is completed.(6) “The Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.(7) A “sitting day”, in relation to each House of Parliament, means a day on which that House begins to sit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have a ten-year strategy for collaborating internationally to tackle refugee crises driving people to enter the UK as refugees.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I hope this section may be a bit shorter. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, already knows, because he just said it, I am rising to introduce Amendment 139D tabled in my name and Amendment 144B, which is consequential to it. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Blunkett, for co-signing it. I have had letters of apology from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who are not able to be here for very good and sufficient reasons.
I particularly appreciate when we come to this that the Government are taking action—I am not suggesting for a moment that they are not. The Chişinău statement made in Moldova recently by the Prime Minister was striking, as were the recent raids by the National Crime Agency in tackling criminals involved in this area.
This amendment mandates the Secretary of State to produce a 10-year strategy for tackling the global refugee crisis—I do say “crisis”—working in collaboration with signatories to the 1951 refugee convention and others. As with human trafficking, a statement of policies for implementing the strategy must be presented to Parliament within a year of the Bill becoming law and every following year. Of course, a subsequent Government can change that. Each time a statement is made, an opportunity must be given for both Houses to debate and vote on it via a Motion for resolution.
As with my previous amendment, Amendment 139C, this amendment is intended to require the Government to consider the long-term global nature of the refugee crisis, only a very small part of which—a minute, almost unmeasurably small part of which—are we seeing on our shores in Dover, in the Canterbury diocese which I serve and where we work extremely hard with those who are arriving. This Bill currently focuses solely on our domestic situation; the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke very eloquently on that in the last group. It proposes action that not only is unlikely to achieve its aim domestically but also undermines the principles of the global refugee system, which the UK was influential in setting up in the first place. The call for a 10-year strategy for international collaboration on the refugee crisis is an attempt to address this by requiring the Government to look beyond our shores and into the longer term, and to lead internationally, as this country should and as it did in 1951.
On the global crisis, some figures have come but they were for the middle of 2022: I happen to have the ones for the end of 2022 and they are worse. At the end of 2022, there were 108.4 million people displaced; 35.3 million were refugees; 62.5 million were internally displaced; and 5.4 million were seeking asylum. As I said at Second Reading, conflict and climate change mean that these numbers are predicted widely to increase as much as tenfold in the next 25 years. The number arriving in small boats in the UK—45,755 in 2022—is tiny when set in such a horrifying context. Other countries, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, are taking far more refugees. Turkey alone was hosting nearly 3.6 million at the end of 2022. It is greatly to be admired, as are Rwanda, Uganda, the DRC and South Sudan, itself after 10 years of civil war having received almost three-quarters of a million people since the war broke out in Khartoum a few weeks ago.
Many other European countries also are taking more, including France and Germany. It is not a competition, but the UK ranked 18th in Europe for our intake of asylum applications per head of the population in the year ending September 2021. Most crucially, 76% of refugees are being hosted in low and middle-income countries—countries infinitely poorer than our own—and 70% in countries neighbouring their home countries. It is neither morally right nor strategically sensible to fail to engage with the global context or to leave other countries to deal with the crisis alone. Doing so damages our reputation as a nation, but it also risks unbearable pressures being placed on other countries and the possibility of state collapse and an ever-growing avalanche of further numbers of refugees across the world, adding to the problems we face.
The 1951 convention is a fundamental bedrock for the care and protection of refugees. To be very clear, this amendment is not proposing that the convention be scrapped or rewritten, where there might be a risk of it being watered down and protections removed. Instead, I am suggesting that the convention should be built upon and added to for the very different context we face today from 1951.
One area where work is needed is clarity on protection for certain types of refugee, such as those fleeing due to climate change or gender-based violence, who are not currently covered, or consistently covered, by the convention and would find themselves in great trouble under this Bill. Another is clarity on the allocation of state responsibility for refugees, including the safe third country principle, and the support for countries dealing with far greater numbers of refugees. Professor Alexander Betts, Enver Solomon and others have proposed a possible approach for this in the form of a state-led solidarity pact, an intergovernmental coalition of donor and host countries which clarifies respective state responsibilities and is supported by what they call the global refugee fund, administered to support host countries affected by large refugee movements.
Although the European Union’s agreement on migration, announced just in the last day or two, is a major step forward, it does not go as far as this. It does however give an example of numerous countries working out how to share their burden, and when the burden is so huge, that must be the way we go.
There have been many suggested policies and alternatives presented in this area and I am not going to waste your Lordships’ time by going into detail on them. This amendment does not specify exactly what should be pursued; it simply mandates the Government to engage seriously with other countries about the options through existing groups such as the Global Refugee Forum—whose meetings I understand the Foreign Office attends but not the Home Office, though I am happy to be corrected by the Minister. Given that refugees under this Bill come under the Home Office, that would seem to be something that might be changed. The amendment further mandates the Government to report back to Parliament annually on action and progress.
Again, if the Minister replies, as I anticipate, by saying that the Government already have longer-term strategies and that this Bill and amendment are not the place for them, I ask him to explain clearly the one place and one plan where we can find them. What guarantees are there that the Government are working and will continue to work with international partners? The amendment seeks to ensure that this Government and future Governments have to consider this rather than focus solely on the domestic context.
I regret that to date there has been little agreement in this Committee between Ministers and those on these Benches or, in fact, any other Benches—and, of course, the previous amendment was supported by every Bench, including the Conservative Benches. I wish to make it entirely clear that we are always willing to work in close partnership, as we have done with the Government on community sponsorship, on receiving Ukrainian citizens fleeing that terrible war and many other projects, including interfaith projects.
If the Government as part of their strategy wish to work in partnership with faith groups and NGOs to identify and support refugees anywhere in the world where we have a presence, we would be delighted to work with them—we normally have excellent sources of information on such things. We want the UK again to be a moral leader on the world stage. We are more than capable of it. A global crisis requires global solutions, and we need to develop them now. If all other counties adopted the approach the UK Government are taking with this Bill, the whole international refugee system would collapse. That is not in our interests—regardless of morality, purely pragmatically—nor any other country’s, never mind those in need of protection.
I urge the Government to take an opportunity for the UK to lead again in the care for and protection of refugees as we have in the past, to set their sights on effective, equitable long-term solutions to this crisis, working with international partners. In this amendment we seek, as were quite rightly challenged to do by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to put forward a practical solution with practical ways of dealing with this and practical outcomes. If the Government have other ways of achieving the same ends which give security for the plans, I am very happy, as are my colleagues, to meet the Minister and discuss how that can be done. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 139D in the name of the most revered Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury; the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, are also signatories.
In passing, I note that it is highly undesirable that Peers have been forced to withdraw from speaking to amendments and giving their views because of the way that things have been organised. I do not lay blame anywhere for that, as I know that the usual channels have tried to accommodate it, but I hope that, when we reach Report, we can have a more reasoned way of dealing with the hours that Members are sitting and the way that we are approaching these things. That would be highly desirable.
I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am strongly of the view that a 10-year strategy is appropriate. I do not quite understand the Minister’s stance of not wanting a long-term strategy. As the most revered Primate set out, we have strategies that are long-term on all sorts of things. We also currently have a strategy for the refugee convention; it has been there for 70 years, and successive Governments have supported it. It seems to me that, rather than have individual approaches by countries around the world on such a global and international issue, it is clearly of interest that we all come together to work on a global and international solution. This problem is not going to go away; it will get much more serious as time goes on, as is clearly the case, with climate change refugees and issues of food security, gender-based violence and so on.
I accept that the Government are doing individual things, but I do not understand why they cannot be developed into a strategy in relation to both trafficking, which we looked at in the last group of amendments, and to the refugee convention, which we are looking at in this group. I anticipate that the Minister will not be any warmer towards this amendment than he was to the last one, but I hope that I stand to be corrected; perhaps I am wrong on that.
It seems to me that on something such as this there is truly an international scenario after 30 years of the refugee convention. Admittedly, the convention has a protocol, but, in essence, it was introduced to deal with the aftermath of World War II and issues related to the Holocaust and so on. We are living in a very different world, and we need a different solution; we need a different strategy to be developed to deal with this issue. I hope that the Minister will see that point, but it seems to me that he has set his face against dealing with something so obvious, and I do not understand why. As I said, I hope I am proved wrong.
We need that international effort. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about regional solutions as well, which is part of it, but, clearly, the UN would be the most appropriate way of bringing this towards some sort of international order and of dealing with what will be a much more serious problem than we have seen hitherto. It is absolutely right that it has affected the UK—I accept totally that we need to do something about it—but it has not affected us nearly as much as our European neighbours, and certainly not as much as many countries around the world.
The idea that we can deal with this in a piecemeal way, with every single country doing something differently, is for the birds. In fact, where we have had success at all—I accept that we have had some—is in talking to partners, including France. I do not understand why the Government set themselves against dealing with this on a broader front. The Minister shakes his head; if he wants to intervene on me, I am very happy to take an intervention. I hope that he can accept the case for international action being necessary.
We have had differences of opinion during the debates on the Bill—understandably, passions have been running high; it has very often been fractious—but here we have a chance to unite as a House and to say that this is something that can be done in a very constructive way to meet the challenges of the future—and, I hope, to deal with some of the issues that have been dividing the House as we have moved through the debates. Frankly, what we have at the moment is something that appears to be an ad hoc approach to dealing with the issue, of coming up with a conglomeration of different ideas, of throwing paint at a wall Jackson Pollock-like and hoping for the best, rather than developing something with a bit more vision of Michelangelo about it.
I hope that the Minister will respond in a positive way, particularly given the ecumenical way that we have been developing, with two new bishops nominating themselves and my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, wanting to join the Spiritual Benches—which shows the fluid nature of the House. As I say, I hope we will be able to come back on Report with something a bit more constructive than the Minister has given us sight of so far. I know that the Minister’s intentions are good. I am sure that he will be going back to the department to seek to convince the Home Secretary, who I know will be listening carefully, how we can move on these issues.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome this amendment. I should say that this is not a bid to join the Bishops’ Benches and I thank the most reverend Primate for introducing it. I want to make just three points.
The first has been implicit in quite a lot of what has been said by the most reverend Primate and by other noble Lords on the previous amendment. It is that, if we are to have a global, collaborative strategy, it has to be from a different mindset from the one that underpins the Bill, because that mindset would prevent such a global strategy. We have to stop acting as if we are somehow uniquely burdened by this global refugee crisis. The figures have been given showing how other countries are pulling their weight much more than we are. Countries with far fewer resources than we have are doing so, yet with the Bill we act as if somehow the poor UK is under siege from this global crisis. To think globally means thinking differently, and we have to think and act with compassion. Compassion has certainly been lacking in this Bill and in the approach being taken.
My second point, which links with this, is that we have to start using a different language. The point has been made a number of times during our debates: people are not illegal and journeys are not illegal, but they are being turned illegal when they arrive here. Please let us not talk about “illegal routes” or “illegal migrants”. They are coming by irregular routes but they are not illegal. This goes right back to the beginning, when we talked about the language that is often used by some politicians and by the media: the language of invasion, cannibalisation and so forth.
It reminds me that I spoke in an even later debate—I think it was at about 2 am—on Albania. I met a group of young Albanians and have just discovered the notes I made from that meeting. I could not find them anywhere, and now I have. They talked about how disturbing they found the way that they were talked about in the media. In one newspaper—I leave the Committee to guess which—they were called “vermin”. I wrote down what they said: they felt violated, unsafe, scared, despised and unwanted. It is dreadful that young people feel that because of the way that we talk about them, so we have to change our language when we talk about the future migration strategy. The research of HOPE not hate suggests that every time politicians or the media talk negatively, it leads to a spike in far-right activity against migrants. Again, that is no basis for building a strategy.
Thirdly and perhaps more positively—this goes back to something that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said earlier—if we are going to develop a strategy, and I hope that we will, we will have to involve refugees themselves in its development. We need the expertise of their experience of what it is like to flee countries and start a new life elsewhere. We have to base our strategy on that understanding, and it involves what the right reverend Prelate referred to earlier as “co-production”. It is not good enough for politicians to sit in their offices and come up with a strategy, then talk to politicians in another country and say, “Right, here’s our strategy”. We need to work from the very start with those people who are experiencing this. That is simply all I want to say.
I wish we could have had this debate at a better time. I am very sorry I was not able to be part of the debate that the most reverend Primate instigated in December, but I have read it and know that there were some inspiring speeches and lots of ideas that could go into the strategy. As I said in my earlier intervention, this is not requiring the Government to do X, Y and Z so that the next Government have to do X, Y and Z; it is simply saying that there has to be a strategic framework, and then Governments work within that. It does not matter what the complexion of the Government is. I certainly hope that my party in government would want to develop a strategic approach towards refugees and, as I say, one that works with refugees in building that.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to be able to follow the words we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my erstwhile colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. There are just a few things I want to add to what I said on the previous amendment. I think that, as a principle—the principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, espoused just now—we need to look beyond ourselves. It is only by looking beyond ourselves that we will find a sustainable and effective solution for the problems we have in front of us.
I was thinking about the models for the sort of process that the most reverend Primate is suggesting. One is the Global Campaign for Education. It is known for its Let me Learn campaign, and it works across the globe to bring together people. I have been in meetings in this House with children from around the globe, from the poorest countries to the richest, using modern technology. The Global Campaign for Education basically wants to ensure that every child in this world has the right and the privilege to be educated by being sent to school. That level of collaboration brings together the United Nations, the rich countries and the donor countries, who then meet the poorer countries—there is a whole structure that sits around it. Unless we start thinking about this as being outward looking, and unless we look beyond ourselves, we are never going to find a sustainable solution.
We support this amendment, as it is seeking to recognise that our UK response to refugees has to be considered by how it interconnects with the global community. We cannot pretend that we can pull up the drawbridge and be isolated from the global issues around us. What we do impacts on other countries.
There are some countries which would follow the lead that the UK takes, but that is a race to the bottom. If we seek to discharge responsibilities for refugees to other countries, there is every chance that other countries will follow the UK’s lead. As countries do this, refugees will be pushed back to the border countries and further to the regions from which they fled. A smaller number of countries will end up shouldering the world’s refugee resources, which will be stretched, and regions will be destabilised. That is a real possibility around the globe.
The UK will be impacted in one way or another, and we cannot separate ourselves from this. The whole global refugee protection system would be at risk of collapse. Forced displacement is a global issue which requires a global response. We need to work towards these ends as described in this amendment, and we need to be seen as a country which is able to take a lead.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the most reverend Primate might be nervous—he did not know I was going to stand up and he has no clue about what I will say. But I will start by saying I fully support his amendment. I will ask the Minister about the Global Compact on Refugees. The UN has been seeking to develop a global strategy on refugees for a number of years, and it was my privilege to join the Home Office team dealing with the Syrian refugee crisis in Geneva in 2018, at its request. It asked me to make an address. I say this partly in answer to my colleague: actually, the Home Office as well as the FCDO has been engaged in some of those discussions. But it seems to me that we have almost lost sight of the fact that we signed up to the global compact. I accept that the Minister may need to write on this, but I ask him: where are we now with our commitment to the global compact on refugees and our commitment to engage in that ongoing development of a UN strategy that responds to refugees? Are Home Office people still involved in those discussions, or has it all moved to the FCDO?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I will not repeat the comments I made on the last group, some of which equally apply here, but, as this is the end of Committee, I feel at liberty to repeat one of the remarks I made at Second Reading. I studied moral philosophy at university—Oxford, I am afraid—and one of the acid tests for whether something was morally right was: what would happen if everyone did the same thing? As the most reverend Primate said, if everyone followed the path that the Government propose to take with the Bill, the whole established global system for dealing with refugees would collapse. International collaboration to tackle refugee crises is essential, as are these amendments, which we support.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to make a short contribution on an amendment that we very much support. Before I make general remarks, I ask the Minister to reflect again on the importance of a strategy and why strategies can move between Governments, as I know from having seen Governments change. That does not mean that they stay exactly the same, and a strategic framework may not bind another Government, but that does not stop Governments producing strategies for themselves. I ask the Minister to reflect on that—I am sure that others who have had experience in government would bear that out.
I was reflecting more generally about the references to the 1951 refugee convention. I mention that because the world faced a global crisis in 1951, and what did it do? Visionary people came together to sort the problem out as best they could and to deal with the challenges that they faced. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, it was more than regional; it was global, affecting the global institutions and world powers, which had major conflicting differences—poverty and goodness only knows what else was going on, with countless millions of people displaced.
I am not saying that the world is currently in a post-World War II situation, but I agree with the most reverend Primate that we face a global crisis that cannot be solved by one country on its own—it just cannot. The world will be driven by a common interest, in some ways, to sort this out. Whatever we think of other countries, their own self-interest will drive them to sort it out. Countries will try to sort it out on their own, but they will not be able to.
Without being a prophet of doom about this, I say that things are going to get more difficult. I do not mean that we are at the edge of the end of the world, or anything like that, but you can see the impacts of regional and ethnic conflict as well as overpopulation, failing crops, the changing climate, water and energy competition and the food crisis, as well as millions of people moving—in fact, countless millions. I know that figures have been arrived at. Many noble Lords have been to parts of the world where it is unbelievable to see some of the poorest countries in the world dealing with millions of people. If those people came into some of the richest countries, I am not sure how they would deal with it. I went to Angola 20 years ago, after the civil war, and you just could not believe it. I went to one refugee camp and there were 1 million people in it—and that was internationally supported, so it was fantastic. I went to Jordan and the number of people who had flooded across the border from Syria into temporary camps there was unbelievable. There were huge numbers of people—and you can replicate that. I do not think that it is going to stop any time soon, and we need to understand how we are going to deal with that and cope with it. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, was quite right to point out the various impacts.
The most reverend Primate is not trying to say that therefore that means that the UK should just allow in anybody who wants to come—that is just trivialising the argument. Of course you have to have control and manage the situation. The point that the amendment seeks to make is that, if this is going to be sorted out—over and above the problem of the boats, which we accept needs to be dealt with—the UK is still a significant power. It is challenged at the moment through some of its attitudes to international conferences, conventions and treaties, but we are still a member of the United Nations Security Council, NATO and the Commonwealth, which we have not mentioned. When you travel, you recognise, understand and see the influence that the UK still has.
In backing the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate, though the initiatives that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has mentioned—with the Clewer Initiative and the Anglican community across the world—I say that in the end people are going to have to come together to sort this out. Somewhere along the line, it will need big, visionary people to stand up and say, “We’re going to do that”.
I am going to make this point—and I am going to take a minute on this issue. The argument in this country, which those of us who stood for election know is difficult, and the conflation between immigration, migration, refugees and asylum makes things actually really difficult, because it is all lumped together as one problem. Somewhere along the line, part of what a strategy does is to get people to step back and reflect. The British public, along with all the publics in the world, can do that. If people are presented even with difficult choices that they may not wish to confront, they are not stupid—they know that sometimes things have to be dealt with.
This is a really important point: people are decent. I know that sometimes they will rant and rave about how this is happening and they cannot believe that everybody is coming here, but I have seen myself, and I am sure that everyone has seen it in their own communities, that if you try to deport one family that has lived in community for a considerable period of time, there will be a campaign in that community to stop them being removed. That is because people are decent. If you look at it as individual children and grandparents, individual men and women, we all know from our own personal experiences that people look at it in a different way. All that the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate is doing is to say that we should harness that and bring it together into a way of addressing a problem that we have as a country but which we have globally as well. If we do not try to sort it out globally, we will have a problem, because the problem will not go away—but it is a challenge that we can meet. This gives us an opportunity to develop a strategy that has at its heart using the privileged position that our country has as a world leader to be an agent for change in a way that would bring about a better world and offer hope to millions of the poorest people in the world.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As before, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for explaining so clearly the case for a 10-year strategy for tackling refugee crises. I agree with him that an assessment of the root causes of refugee migration to the UK, and indeed any country, is a worthwhile endeavour. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, by extension from his remarks, in questioning whether the British Government, or indeed any one national Government, are the appropriate body to develop such a strategy.
Indeed, the most reverend Primate also acknowledged in his speech on Amendment 139C that developing global solutions to such issues cannot be done by one country alone. None the less, I assure my noble friend Lord Bourne that this Government are strongly committed to international action and collaboration in this area. Indeed, as many have noted, we have a strong track record of international collaboration with both state and non-state actors, such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Bank, non-governmental organisations and other donors, and through our direct engagement with major refugee-hosting countries.
The UNHCR has a global mandate to protect and safeguard the rights of refugees and to support internally displaced populations and people who are stateless or whose nationality is disputed. We will of course continue to work with the UNHCR, as we have done many times before, to respond to displacement crises globally and offer safe routes to protection in the UK.
I understand the most reverend Primate’s reasoning for introducing his amendment; after all, the UNHCR estimated that, as of mid-2022, the number of forcibly displaced persons exceeded 100 million. We heard earlier today that the figure is now said to be in excess of 110 million. That figure results from armed conflict, violence, persecution, climate change, economic uncertainty and food insecurity—all of which are on the rise.
As the most reverend Primate and my noble friend Lord Bourne indicated, the international community can address displacement on this scale only collectively, through a holistic approach, utilising, where appropriate, developmental, diplomatic, military and humanitarian interventions. I also acknowledge our work with faith groups, not least the Anglican community, in furthering our policy objectives in this area. That is the approach that the UK has taken. Recognising the need for a holistic approach in our own strategy, rather than creating a siloed refugee strategy, the UK Government have already embedded actions to tackle refugee crises throughout existing cross-government strategies, including the Integrated Review Refresh, as well as the international development strategy and the humanitarian framework.
We already take a long-term approach to tackling refugee crises. The UK has been one of the largest donors to the agencies working on the front line over many years. We have also played a key role in intergovernmental processes that have shaped the way in which the international community responds to displacement crises, such as through the development of the Global Compact on Refugees—mentioned earlier by the right reverend Prelate—which was adopted by the international community in 2018, and, before that, through the World Humanitarian Summit, as well as through our engagement with major development actors such as the World Bank. In particular, the Global Compact on Refugees provides the international community with a shared strategy for tackling refugee crises, and a shared vision and strategy for how to operationalise the principles of predictable and equitable burden and responsibility sharing—principles that underpin refugee protection.
In response to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the Home Office continues to work closely with the FCDO in preparation for the next Global Refugee Forum in December.
The Government are constantly considering the longer-term drivers, impacts and policy implications of migration, alongside delivering more immediate improvements to the system. Our approach is cross-government: we work with a wide range of departments on diplomacy and development, and with law enforcement agencies, in developing this. I believe that this is the most appropriate means by which to do so.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have contributed, as well as the co-signatories to the amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord German, in encouraging us to look beyond ourselves. I accept willingly—well, reluctantly—the apology from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for going to Oxford.
I was very worried about what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was about to say; if you had sat with him over the last 10 years in the House of Bishops, you would be worried too. But it is well known that, on these Benches, we do not use whips—I leave the imagination of noble Lords to run riot. In fact, over the past 10 years, I have noticed that, when it comes to Report, as often as not these Benches cancel themselves out by voting in different directions. So when the Minister is doing his calculations, he may find that encouraging.
Turning to what the Minister said, I am again disappointed but not surprised. But I genuinely think that it is unwise—I am not saying that it is bad, just unwise. Surely the role of Parliament is to contribute to the Government’s thinking and to call them to account, and to do that not by having to burrow into the highways and byways of policy and commitment but to be able, as we do on defence and other areas where strategies are published, to have the opportunity to look at the whole at once and take a global view. Not being able to do that is, I think, not of advantage to the way this country is governed or to what the Government do or, particularly, to the way that this House operates.
I am happy to be corrected but I think the Minister slightly misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in suggesting that he said that Britain could not take a lead and it had to be the UN. I think it was more or less the opposite. One of the great privileges of the last few years has been to have a growing relationship with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with whom we work extensively in Mozambique, the DRC and other places, through our local bishops and clergy. One of the things he would say again and again is that for the UN to work it needs leadership, not from within but from members of the P5. Their leadership makes an enormous difference. This country provided the first Secretary-General as one of the key founders of the United Nations. Of course we should do it through the United Nations—no one could doubt that—but what is there in us that we should lose confidence in our ability to lead the world? We have done it for hundreds of years, morally and brilliantly at times. Let us regain our confidence and not hide back and hope that someone else creeps forward on to the front line to deal with this issue. I appeal to the Minister: let there be less fear and more faith in this country. It deserves it.
Finally, there is one other way of dealing with this—the boats must be stopped—which is by increasing the speed of returns and getting the current system working effectively and efficiently. We can make an enormous difference, and not be putting people on barges. I was in Weymouth, in Salisbury diocese, over the weekend, meeting 130 community leaders. There is going to be a barge in Weymouth Harbour; it is being fitted out at the moment and will be there in the next few days, I believe. The mayors and the MPs were there— everyone was there—and I asked how much consultation there had been from the Government. The answer was none whatever—none, zero, zilch. That is an example of the consequences of lack of strategy. Strategy sends a group of people down from the Home Office, a task force, to work with local people. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, we are a kind, hospitable and gentle nation who would receive people happily.
I am aware of the time—it is almost 10.40 pm. I feel that there are probably two minutes more of words that I need to say.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thought the most reverend Primate the Archbishop would welcome my support for what he said about our country regaining its confidence. To reassure the Minister, I was talking about the international bodies, and the United Nations in particular, but with Britain playing a leadership role in those organisations to bring about the change that we would all want to see across the world. I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for allowing me to reinforce the point he made on my behalf; it is an exceedingly important one.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is an international problem, and it requires an international strategy. Britain has the capacity to deliver it and lead on it. We must stop the boats. We require an international approach to do that.
We must control our borders. That cannot be done simply by cutting off people who arrive; it must be done by cutting them off far further back. To cut them off simply when they arrive is like what happens in the parts of the Diocese of Canterbury which are prone to flooding: thinking that by putting up sandbags at the front door, you can stop the water coming in round the back.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The point was made earlier in relation to the previous amendment about our international obligations: we cannot expect international collaboration and to provide the kind of leadership that is being talked about if we do not meet our international obligations. One criticism of the Bill is that it does not do so, and that it undermines our international obligations.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness have made the same point with great eloquence. It is obviously essential.
I have a final quote. I am going to quote the Bible —I am sorry about that but it is sort of my job. It comes from the Old Testament, where one of the prophets asks: “What are we called to do?” We are called to love mercy, to act justly and to walk humbly with our God. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment has the effect that the power for regulations under the Bill to make consequential etc provision and to make different provision for different purposes applies to the power to make transitional and saving provision in connection with the coming into force of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“national | section 3(11)” |
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 5, line 38.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 28th June 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Jun 2023)
16:31 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 179 - Amendment 5 agreed.
17:34 - Division on Amendment 6 - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 6 agreed.
18:42 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 12 agreed.
19:18 - Division on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 133 - Amendment 14 agreed.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords across this House are to be commended for the anxious scrutiny given to this most controversial Bill over many hours, days and nights in Committee. Now, it is time to move through votes on as many already well-debated amendments as quickly as possible.
I have Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 13 in this first group. However, short of any miraculous change of heart by the Home Secretary and the Government, it is the crucial Amendment 5, also bearing the names of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that I shall press in what I hope will be a very short while. It replaces the rather long and strange narrative in Clause 1, so as to reinstate Section 3, the interpretation provision, of the Human Rights Act, and ensure that the rest of the Bill is read so as not to require that British officials, Ministers or His Majesty’s judges breach precious international treaties that our former statesmen and stateswomen played such a heroic part in creating. These are the ECHR of 1950, the refugee convention of 1951, the conventions on statelessness of 1954 and 1961, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, and the anti-trafficking convention of 2005.
This interpretation amendment is essential to protecting the most vulnerable people, including by any amendments to follow. It is equally important for the international rules-based order and for our reputation as a great democracy in a troubled world. That was two minutes. I beg to move.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on one legal point. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, stated, quite correctly, that we have a dualist system under which international obligations are not part of our law unless specifically incorporated by statute. I consider that this interpretation amendment does not fall foul of that because it imposes no positive obligation to do anything specifically required under those treaties. It is simply of a negative nature to say that the Bill itself —and, in due course, the Act—must be interpreted so as not to conflict with those treaties. For my part, it is perfectly legitimate and legal.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, in my name. I appreciate the need to move as fast as possible and I shall be as short as I can. This amendment, which appeared in Committee and is renewed today, would require the Secretary of State to provide
“guidance as to how the provisions of this Act are to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights”.
The amendment follows a recommendation by the Constitution Committee prompted by the provisions in Clause 1(3), which tells us that
“so far as it is possible to do so, … this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)”.
Clause 1(5), the crucial subsection, states:
“Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998”—
which gives the function of deciding what the convention rights mean for the courts—
“does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act”.
The Committee said that the Government’s position requires explanation. Of course, there are more fundamental objections to these provisions, which are the subject particularly of Amendment 5. I do not want anything I may say in the next few minutes to be taken as undermining in any way the point made by the noble Baroness in favour of her amendment, but the fact remains that the Government’s position on how these provisions are going to work needs to be explained, and no sufficient explanation has been given. Clause 1(5), after all, is a major incursion into the way the convention rights are currently protected. This is a matter of particular concern given the extent to which the Bill affects so many people, including children and the victims of modern slavery, who are extremely vulnerable to government action. As I said last time, they are being sent into a desperate kind of no man’s land where the ordinary protections we enjoy are being denied them.
In replying to this amendment in Committee, the Minister said that my amendment was at odds with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act which, as he put it,
“should be our guiding light here; it affords the necessary clarity for those seeking to give effect to the provisions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 921.]
I simply did not understand that response and I still do not; indeed, I think it makes the case for guidance of the kind I am talking about all the more strongly. Without going into details, Section 6(1) requires public authorities to act compatibly with the convention rights, while Section 6(2) disapplies it in two circumstances. Yet the fact that the Minister is contemplating disapplication of Section 6(1) suggests to me that he is contemplating that there will be breaches of convention rights flowing from the provisions of the Bill. That seems quite inconsistent with the ECHR memorandum, which says that the clauses it identifies as engaging the convention rights are capable of being applied compatibly.
I am not going to enlarge any further, but it seems to me that that explanation does not make any sense; it is contradictory to the memorandum and it is no answer to the point I was seeking to raise. The fundamental point takes me back to Amendment 5: the short answer to the difficulty created by that explanation is to vote in favour of Amendment 5, which I will do.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 5 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, who put his name to the amendment but regrets that he cannot be here with us today. This amendment is firmly in the Conservative tradition of strengthening, not undermining, the international rule of law. I remind noble Lords, and especially my noble friend, that Conservative Governments were instrumental in creating the first four conventions listed in the amendment.
Regrettably, the precise legal position of the Bill and its compliance with our international obligations—with this Conservative legacy—remains unclear. The Government say they believe it is compliant. A great number of others, include some of the bodies tasked with implementing these conventions, say that it is not. What is clear is that disobeying or disapplying international agreements which bear the name of the United Kingdom is not acceptable. If the Government are unhappy with their international obligations, they are free to seek to renegotiate them, but simply ignoring our international legal commitments in pursuit of domestic expediency puts us in very bad company.
As your Lordships’ House has repeatedly reminded the Government over the last few years, if we hope to negotiate or originate future international agreements on anything from trade to artificial intelligence, and to continue to play our historic role as a creator and driver of international law, we cannot breach our existing agreements. Who would trust us then? We rightly argue for the rule of law in our international relationships and expect it to be followed by other countries; we must follow it ourselves.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I support Amendment 5 also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. In Committee a comprehensive debate took place, during which different cases were made by distinguished lawyers across the House about the place of international law as it relates to our domestic lawmaking. Notwithstanding the different interpretations, I wish to reflect on the moral imperative for us to take seriously the commitments we have made in past decades. Those commitments have value in themselves, but they have also come to define the country that we are and aspire to be. They are part of why we are trusted by much of the international community and held in high regard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I think the argument for Amendment 5 was won in Committee and need not be rehearsed at great length now. In my view there is no doubt that if we pass the Bill, what will follow will be a series of breaches of conventions, in particular the 1951 refugee convention. That is not just my view. It is also UNHCR’s view, formally and on the record.
When this point was put to him on our first day in Committee, the Minister said that UNHCR
“is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 968.]
That is not true. Article 35 and the preamble to the refugee convention give UNHCR the task of supervising its implementation. We are required as convention contracted parties to submit our legislation to UNHCR. It has commented on this legislation and believes it would lead to breaches of the convention. That is why you can sum up the argument in three words: pacta sunt servanda. If we purport to believe in the rules-based international system, we cannot pass the Bill in this form. We must support Amendment 5. If the Government believe what they say, they can support Amendment 5 too.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we were given an admirable example by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in her brevity at the beginning. I have to apologise to the House that, because I am looking after a sick wife, I will not be here as late as I would like to be. But this is a fundamental amendment in the Bill, and to violate international law is to invalidate national law. We should all bear that in mind. We often talk of China and the violation of the agreement that we made when Hong Kong was handed over. How can we continue to do that with sincerity and determination if we pass laws in this place that violate international law?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we have heard several times in the course of debates on the Bill that this is the will of the British people. I can assure the noble Lord sitting opposite that, if he steps outside the right-wing media, he will see that it is not. They have already been quite shocked by the egregious and often law-breaking behaviour of this Government, so now the only decent thing this Government can do is accept Amendment 5 and say that they will not break more laws. This is a reasonable request from, apparently, the whole House. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, at an earlier stage in our debates I asked all the lawyers present why our judiciary and officials, in interpreting these international agreements, give 75% of applicants for asylum the right to asylum on first application. It is only 25% in France and in almost all other countries it is below ours. If we are interpreting these laws correctly, other countries must be interpreting them incorrectly. We are told that we will lose all credibility if we do things incorrectly. Why do these other countries not lose all credibility? Why has none of the lawyers answered these questions before or now?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak within two minutes and oppose this amendment. Migration Watch was the first organisation to draw attention to this problem and has been calling for action for three years. I will make two political points, not legal ones. I leave the law to the lawyers.
Practically, we find ourselves in a situation where we have no means of stopping the flow of another 50,000 applicants for asylum over this year, and quite possibly as many or more next year. With last year’s intake still under consideration, the whole system is being overwhelmed and the cost is becoming extraordinary, even as a percentage of our foreign aid. This is unacceptable.
Secondly, from a political point of view, I am not political but the public are furious—
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Noble Lords know that I am not. The point has just been made that the public do not understand this—they are furious and the Government’s reputation is suffering severely. Effective action is essential, but that will be only harder if this amendment is approved. I trust that this House will ensure some flexibility on the legal front in order that a very serious matter may be addressed practically.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, some extreme language was used throughout Second Reading and Committee and there was very strong emotion. I understand that, because the Bill evokes strong feelings, but I suspect that, beneath all that, there may be more agreement than has been visible in our debate today and in previous debates. The spokesman for the Opposition has not added his name to this amendment and they did not oppose Second Reading, I suspect because there is an understanding that this is a difficult problem that any Government have to deal with. Any Government of whatever stripe have to take protecting the country’s borders extremely seriously.
A great deal of agreement underlies all this. For example, we all agree that there should be better-organised legal routes for genuine asylum seekers than there are at the moment. The main difference between the two sides in this debate is over the role of deterrence. The Government argue that we will not succeed in handling this problem unless there is an element of deterrence.
To bring it up to date—I will respond to the Chief Whip’s desire to be quick—we now all have the impact assessment, which we did not have until the day before yesterday, which points out the Australian example. Australia brought in a law very similar to this, which gave its Government the power to detain people and turn them around, in their case to Nauru and the Solomon Islands—in our case it is to Rwanda—within 48 hours. I asked the Government, reasonably, why we are not doing this. They pointed out that the Australians do not have to pay any regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, whereas we do. In their view, to comply with that, we could not reasonably turn detainees around within 48 hours; we would have to take at least 28 days, as is in the Bill at the moment.
I do not know whether the Government have ticked every box and crossed every T in relation to the ECHR, but it is quite clear that they have made a big attempt to do so. They have clearly taken on board the spirit of what we have agreed, even if not the letter of the law. The Government are in discussions with the European court about the convention. I am interested to know what the Minister can say about the state of those discussions. It is not only the UK but other countries—Italy, Spain and France—that are in discussion, because this is a new problem which is not covered by the original convention. We have to take that into account and realise that there is a real problem here, which is not a lot to do with immigration but is about border control more than anything else, which any Government will have deal with.
In relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Bill in its unamended form, as it is now, passed the Commons with a majority of 59. There is huge public support for what the Government are attempting to do. The latest YouGov poll showed 60% as saying that illegal migrants should not be allowed to claim asylum in this country; only 20% said the reverse, and 20% were undecided. We have to take that into account. As Matthew Parris, who is no one’s idea of a right-wing nutcase, said recently in an article:
“If you oppose the government’s plans to send away those who land, then whether or not you know it you are advocating an indefinite continuation of migrant deaths. And that is cruel”.
It is indeed cruel to allow that continue.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the refugee crisis in a global one and any sustainable solution needs to be international. If we do not comply with our international obligations, as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, we are unlikely to achieve the international co-operation necessary to deal with the crisis. I am afraid I do not agree with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that because other countries do not abide by their obligations, we should not abide by ours either.
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, talked about the cost. The Government’s own impact assessment says that implementing the measures in the Bill will cost the country more than the status quo. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, the impact assessment says there is an “academic consensus” that there is no evidence that the measures in the Bill will have a deterrent effect. Opinion polls may say that illegal migrants should not be allowed to settle in the UK but we are talking about genuine refugees; we are not talking about illegal migrants.
We support all the amendments in this group and Amendment 5 in particular, which we will support if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, chooses to divide the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I have the misfortune to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I know that he will not think that this is any personal discourtesy. Let me take a few minutes to explain to the House why I respectfully disagree.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Noble Lords say “No”; I think there are important points of constitutional principle here, and if that means we take another two and half minutes over it, so be it.
The starting point is that we are, as the noble and learned Lord said, a dualist state. That means that the treaties listed in the amendment are not part of our domestic law. If you were to go to court and try to rely on, for example, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it does not give you a right in domestic law. I will come back to that point in a moment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, and my work with the University of Nottingham Rights Lab.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, Karen Bradley MP and I were at an international co-operation event on human trafficking. Nothing better illustrated the importance of international co-operation than the discussions we had over the last couple of the days; they showed how important the UK’s reputation is.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam: no one is saying that there is not a problem that needs solving. However, it should not be solved by trashing international conventions that we have signed up to but in a way which is consistent with them and which we should be proud of.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, mentioned the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remind him that it was the 1991 Conservative Government who ratified that convention. That was when we had a Conservative Government who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, pointed out, actually put into practice most of these conventions. They were proud of it, the country was proud of it, and this Parliament was proud of it. We do not solve the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, mentioned by driving a coach and horses through that.
Can your Lordships imagine what we would say if the other countries that have signed up to the international treaties which we have signed turned round and said, “We’re not going to abide by those treaties any more”? Imagine if they unilaterally declared that they would step away from them and have nothing to do with them. That is the point of principle.
There is something else that I found absolutely unbelievable. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that we absolutely support Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and one reason I did not put my name to it is that we wanted to show the breadth of support across this Chamber for that amendment. To think that I do not talk to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti about different amendments, or that we do not work together, as we do, along with other Members of this House, is nonsense.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, pointed out that the amendment says:
“Nothing in this Act shall require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom”.
The noble Lord can have his point of view—I agree with that. My point is that it is unbelievable that this House has to have an amendment before it to actually require the Government of our country to abide by the international conventions that they have signed up to. That is the point of principle.
I do not know what dualism is; I had never heard of it until a couple of weeks ago—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who tried to tell me what it was. I am still not sure I understand it, but what I do understand is that, if you sign international conventions, freely, then the obligation is on you to abide by those conventions, and that is the expectation of those countries which sign them with you. That is what we should stand for. It is why we will support Amendment 5 and are proud to do so.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister replies, can I mention that I have two amendments in my own name, which are consequential? They relate to the ability to have judicial review if the amendment to Clause 1 succeeds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has set out, Amendment 5 seeks to replace Clause 1 with a new clause that provides that nothing in this Bill requires an act or omission that conflicts with the five international agreements specified in the amendment. This includes the European Convention on Human Rights. Amendment 4, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is focused on compatibility with the ECHR. As I have repeatedly said in the debates on the Bill, and to reassure my noble friends Lady Helic and Lord Cormack, the Government take their international obligations, including under the ECHR, very seriously, and there is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with UK international obligations. Amendment 5 is therefore, on one level, unnecessary. But what might be viewed as a benign amendment takes a wrecking ball to our long-established constitutional arrangements, with uncertain consequences, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
Along with other countries with similar constitutional arrangements to the UK, we have a dualist approach, where international law is treated as separate to domestic law and incorporated only by domestic law passed by Parliament through legislation. We have, of a fashion, reproduced in domestic law aspects of the text of the ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998, but that is not generally the case with other international instruments listed in the amendment.
The effect of this amendment would be to allow legal challenges based on international law in the domestic courts. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson has eloquently explained, this amendment would incorporate these instruments into our domestic law by the back door, thereby making substantive changes to the Bill. I therefore have to disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on the effect of Amendment 5. As my noble friend said, this is wrong in principle and far from being an academic point for the lawyers. There is a legitimate case to be made for incorporation but this is not the Government’s intention, and we should not make such a fundamental change to our domestic law on the basis of a two-hour debate in Committee and a rather shorter one again today.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, hit the nail on the head in her insightful contribution in Committee. In the Bill we are legislating to prevent and deter the small boats by putting in place a scheme that makes it unambiguously clear that if you arrive in the UK illegally, you will not be able to stay; instead, you will be detained and returned to your home country or removed to a safe third country. That is the proposition we are seeking to put on the statute book. That is the proposition which Parliament will have endorsed and, having done so, that is the proposition that our courts should give effect to. As the noble Baroness said, we risk undermining the reputation of this place and the elected House if the clear intent of Parliament can be unravelled by this misguided amendment.
On the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Government have published two memoranda addressing issues arising under the ECHR, and I remain unpersuaded of the case for statutory guidance on how the Bill’s provisions are to be implemented compatibly with convention rights. It will undoubtedly be necessary to provide Home Office staff and others with appropriate guidance to support the implementation of the Bill. In the Government’s view, it would not be appropriate for such routine operational guidance on the implementation of a particular Act to be subject to parliamentary approval.
Amendments 13 and 16, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would strike out Clause 4(1)(d), which makes it clear that the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of a person who meets the conditions in Clause 2 applies regardless of any judicial review challenge to their removal. The noble and learned Lord’s explanatory statement for Amendment 13 describes it as consequential on Amendment 5. It may well be the noble and learned Lord’s intention to provide for judicial review challenges to removal—whether on ECHR grounds or otherwise—to be suspensive of removal, but that is not the Government’s stance, and I do not accept that his amendment is consequential on Amendment 5. We need a scheme that will enable removals in days and weeks, not, as now, in months and years. Clause 4(1) is critical to achieving that objective and I cannot support its evisceration.
Finally, as regards Amendments 1 to 3, I simply remind the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is an offence to knowingly enter the United Kingdom without the required leave or to arrive without valid entry clearance or electronic travel authorisation. That being the case, Clause 1(1) quite properly refers to “unlawful migration” and “illegal routes”.
In response to the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, I point out that the refugee convention is clear that states can still operate controls on illegal migration. Under Article 31, it is indeed expressly permitted to disadvantage those who have arrived illegally from safe countries, which is true of all who come from France. This embodies the first safe country principle, in the sense that Article 31 protections apply only to those who have come directly from unsafe countries. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally, including in the common European asylum system, which is a framework of rules and procedures operated by the EU countries together, based on the refugee convention.
These amendments, particularly Amendment 5 but also Amendment 13, go to the heart of the workability of the Bill. Your Lordships’ House has a choice: either we can continue to accept the status quo, which could see the £3.6 billion spent on supporting asylum seekers in 2022-23 mushroom to £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, by 2026, or we can back the Bill, retain Clause 1 and Clause 4(1)(d), and stop the boats. The House should be in no doubt that these are wrecking amendments. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, not to press his Amendment 4, and ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, not to press her amendment. However, were she to do so, I would have no hesitation in inviting your Lordships’ House to reject the amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
With reference to what has just been said about the first safe country principle, I would point out to the Minister and to the House that the UNHCR is on record from last week as authoritatively, formally saying that there is no requirement in international law for an asylum seeker to seek protection in the first safe country they reach. We may not like what the umpire says, but he is the umpire.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord will recall, and as my noble friend Lord Wolfson made clear in Committee, the UNHCR is not empowered to interpret or referee the convention. That is clear from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The UNHCR is not in a position to make that assessment, and I refer the House to the comments I made a moment ago.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful, as always, to all noble Lords for their contributions and to most noble Lords for their brevity. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“IntroductionNothing in this Act shall require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom under— (a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces the narrative and interpretation provisions of Clause 1 with clear provision for compliance with all the key international obligations engaged by the Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
If the Government will not accept Amendment 13 as consequential, I will need to press Amendment 13 as well; but, first, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the duty to deport in Clause 2 does not apply retrospectively to those who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom before the Bill comes into force.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, five of the amendments in this group have my name and the names of noble and noble and learned friends on them. They are designed to remove retrospectivity in relation to the duty to deport. I, and certainly two of my noble friends, have had the advantage of a meeting with the Attorney-General and officials in recent days to discuss this, and I hope I am not being too optimistic in hoping that we will hear something at least partly welcome from the Minister at the end of this debate. I shall be very disappointed if that does not happen.
Retrospectivity is the enemy of legal certainty. Legal certainty is a basic tenet of common law and of our statutory law. In order to save time, I am not going to cite various very eminent judges who have spoken on this subject. I will simply give the names of Lord Bingham, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, and the great public lawyer the late Sir John Laws. I remind your Lordships that the House of Lords Constitution Committee has emphasised that retrospective legislation should be passed in very exceptional circumstances only. The proof of very exceptional circumstances should require more than mere assertion: it should require clear evidence. The fact that the retrospectivity asked for, as in this situation, may affect a relatively small cohort of people is no mitigation for the wrong of unnecessary retrospectivity.
The Government are not offering evidence. They are offering a refrain, and the refrain is: “Stop the boats”. But they have failed to offer any convincing evidence at all as to how the present circumstances are so exceptional as to justify the Bill’s wide-ranging retrospective powers. This is wholly unacceptable, given that the proposals represent a widespread retroactive overhaul of our asylum law, founded simply on a deterrent effect—“Stop the boats”—which is unproved.
Again, for the purposes of brevity, I will not deliver the whole speech I would have wished to—and will break the habits of a lifetime thereby. But I remind your Lordships that the deterrent effect is hardly borne out by the Government’s own figures for migrants detected crossing the channel in June 2023, the very month we are in. I was surprised they did not appear in the impact statement, because they were available before it. According to those figures, up to that point, 3,506 migrants were detected crossing the channel in June this year, compared with 3,139 in June last year—some 400 more, and 1,500 more than in June 2021. If one looks at the figures for April, May and June 2023 together, the evidence that this retrospective element is stopping the boats is a fairy tale, but one of those nasty fairy tales that keeps the victims of it awake at night because of the uncertainty of what will happen to them.
Furthermore, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 addressed the same public policy issue and was not retrospective. As Dame Priti Patel MP, the then Home Secretary, said in the Second Reading debate on that legislation, the intention was that:
“Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country”. [Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 717.]
In other words, the policy intention was the same, but although there was a little bit of retrospectivity in that legislation, the vast majority of its provisions were not retrospective.
At the conclusion of Committee on this Bill, the Minister admitted that announcing that it applied from 7 March 2023
“may not have had a decisive impact”. [Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 967.]
Well, the evidence suggests that it has not had a decisive effect at all. At best it is equivocal, which cannot be a basis for proper retrospectivity. The evidence does not justify such broad and sweeping legislation, which seeks to apply penalties to those who cross the channel to claim asylum, being retrospective in its entirety. It would set a dangerous precedent whereby the Government could legislate retrospectively, based on no more than conjecture and anecdote.
I respectfully suggest, even at this stage of the Bill, that a dangerous precedent is being set, that we should be deadly serious about the fact that we are dealing with the law and with sound and historic legal practice, and that this is not a situation in which the case for retrospectivity is anywhere near made out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, brevity does not mean half-heartedness today and these Benches whole-heartedly support the noble Lord’s amendments to which my name has been added. It is not only an academic, philosophical, juris- prudential matter; retrospectivity applied to this Bill will be cited as a precedent for the future and would have an impact in the real world for individuals.
As we have heard, the Nationality and Borders Act is not retrospective. Indeed, the two classes of asylum seekers for which it provided have not even been brought into effect. Ironically, the situation and the figures that have been cited have supported our points that it will not have the deterrent effect that has been claimed. It is a very thin claim. The weather in the case of the channel crossings, and TikTok’s policy in the case of Albania, did have an effect. That puts all of us in our place.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 10 and draw attention to my entry in the register with regard to support from RAMP for this and other groups of amendments.
I have lost count of the number of times I have asked where the child rights impact assessment is, only to be told that we will receive it “in due course”. It should have been available from the outset to help develop policy, and yet here we are at Report stage with no sign of it still. Without it, how are we supposed to assess ministerial claims that their policies are in the best interest of the child and that there is no incompatibility with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child? Yesterday in Oral Questions I asked the Minister. All he could say was that:
“I am sure that it will be provided”.—[Official Report, 27/6/23; col. 574.]
When? After the Bill has gone through?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have looked through these amendments but not put my name to any of them. I have to say that they—in particular Amendment 8—drive a coach and horses through much of what this Bill stands for. Therefore, I am going to ask my noble friend to make sure he resists them.
This is important because we face some very serious challenges in our society as a result of the rapid growth in our population. I will go over this issue only briefly because we are time-constrained, but I just remind your Lordships that this is already a relatively overcrowded island. Last year, we admitted permanently 600,000; the year before last, we admitted 500,000. Stoke-on-Trent has a population of 250,000, Milton Keynes 288,000 and Derby 259,000. If we are going to house those people properly—and we certainly should —we will have to build four Milton Keynes or four Derbies over just two years. On dwellings, we all know how fiercely fought this is. In 2001, there were 21 million dwellings in this country; there are now 25 million—in 20 years, we have built 4 million dwellings.
It is not just at that very high level. The fact that we are introducing hosepipe bans in the south-east of England now is because the population is rising so fast we are running short of water. When we debated this in Committee, I took a certain amount of incoming from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. He said:
“everyone who has spoken so far has agreed, that we have to control migration. I do not think there is any argument about that, but does the noble Lord accept that of that 700,000 last year, or whatever the number turns out to be exactly, the Bill will cover only 45,000? The Bill is not about overall immigration”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 897.]
That is a fair point. However, the figure turned out to be 600,000 and it may well be that that 45,000 is 60,000, in which case it is 10%, not a sufficiently significant number, but the real challenge to us is that everybody thinks it is not their challenge. Everybody thinks it is somebody else’s challenge.
We have heard persuasive, dreadful, heart-rending speeches about the positions that people find themselves in—on behalf of interest groups of various sorts—and no doubt we shall hear them again. However, one group has essentially not been heard during our debates, and that is the 67.3 million people who live in this country, 18% of whom are from minority communities.
When I undertook my polling—which, as I have said to Members of the House, is freely available to anyone—I did not want it to be said that it was going to be old white Brexiteers living in the country, as opposed to young trendy hipsters living in the towns. In response to the question “The UK is overcrowded”, between 60% and 70% of people polled, across all social classes, all regions of the country and all age groups, felt that was the case. Every interest group, including those that are seeking to blunt the effect of the legislation before us, has to play its part in reducing the number. Unless we are seen to be responding to between 60% and 70% of our fellow citizens, uglier and nastier voices will emerge to capture that. We need to be conscious of that.
In my view, the amendments would punch holes in the bucket. How much water would flow out I do not know, but I hope the Minister will think very carefully before allowing the bucket to lose too much water because that way difficulties lie for us, for our communities and for generations ahead.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, in Committee I tabled a similar amendment to Amendment 10, so I will not say much now because I said it then. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord has just said, and I recognise that we do not want illegal migration. However, there are broader and more important issues.
Children have rights. A child who is unaccompanied comes to this country, sometimes quite young, and is settled here in local authority care, placed perhaps in a foster family or a residential home. They go to an English school and become fluent in English but then, at the age of 18, are then removed either to Rwanda—the only country with which there is an agreement apart from Albania, and Albanian children are unlikely to be in this group—or to some other country or home that they have fled. Quite simply, to uproot children at 18 is, as I said in Committee, cruel.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 10, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss. The sole objective of the amendment is to ensure that the Government fulfil their clear responsibility to protect the best interests of children under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 3 of the convention provides explicitly that in all actions the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration, and that is what the amendment says. Article 20 requires that children separated from their parents be given special protection and assistance. Unaccompanied children seeking asylum in this country, as noble Lords know, will have escaped from the most appalling persecution, trafficking, modern slavery and other abominable experiences. The current Government are putting the reputation of this country at risk for years to come if they insist on rejecting Amendment 10 and others that seek only to ensure that this country respects our international obligations.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have found my notes—they were at my feet—and so will intervene now, if I may.
I support Amendments 6 and 10, and I hope all other noble Lords will similarly support them. I am responsible for Amendment 8. It has been suggested that this is a busting amendment. I do not intend to put it to a vote but I intend to tell your Lordships the importance of my amendment.
It is a little difficult for me to make this intervention because I greatly respect my Front Bench and do not like being in fundamental disagreement with them. However, I am making this intervention because I believe we should all be aware of the gross injustice that this Bill will impose, when enacted, on thousands of refugees arriving in this country. Noble Lords should also be aware that we have the power, under the Parliament Acts, to delay this process as far as to May or June of next year, thereby allowing the Government to have a big rethink.
I wish to be cognisant of the wishes of your Lordships’ House and not to speak at length, and I certainly do not want to upset my Front Bench and Chief Whip by going on too long, but this will affect thousands and thousands of refugees, and we should be aware of what we are doing. That is why I have tabled an amendment to remove Clause 2. In Committee, this amendment was supported by the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Coaker. I am now being left to table it on my own.
What is the injustice? Let me trace it through one set of refugees: the Afghan refugees. The information relating to them is contained in the official government statistics for 2022. I do not have the figures for 2023 to bring it up to date—I do not think they have even been issued. In 2022, 8,633 Afghan refugees sought asylum in this country. Most significantly, 97% of them were granted asylum or other status so that they could remain in the United Kingdom. Compare that with the Albanian refugees—there are rather more of them, at around 12,000—76% of whom were refused entry.
It can be assumed that, in 2023, the same number of Afghans, or possibly more, will arrive in this country. We can also assume that there will be the same proportion of genuine refugees, and that all of them will have come to this land in the genuine belief that there is the availability of asylum for them—the people smugglers are hardly going to tell them otherwise. This point was supported by paragraph 33 on page 13 of the impact assessment.
The further point I ask your Lordships to note is that, under the Taliban, there is a lot of evidence of mistreatment of Afghans, particularly women, and particularly relating to education. I also ask noble Lords to take note that, in Afghanistan, there is terrorism, persecution, false imprisonment and torture, hence the very large number of Afghans who got asylum. I remind noble Lords that that figure is 97%.
We should also look at their long journey to this country. The measured distance between Kabul and Calais is 4,168 miles—nearly twice the journey of crossing the United States of America. We do not know precisely how they carried out that journey but, inevitably, it must have been through Iran and Iraq—two countries which are not friendly to passengers—and possibly on through war-torn Syria. Somehow or other, they managed to reach the Mediterranean and Europe, via Greece or Italy. Their mode of transport must have been fairly limited. If they had the money, they might have been able to take a bus, but, in the main, they must have had to get the indulgence of lorry drivers and accept lifts from them. In my view, one has to be left with an admiration of the Afghans who made it to Calais. The Government make much of the illegal entry of the boat people, but how else could they have got here? Should they have obtained UK visa forms in the depths of the mountainous country of Afghanistan? How on earth could they have made the journey here, except in the circumstances they have?
The consequences of the provisions of the Bill will simply be dire for all refugees. Let us briefly look at them. First, without any investigation about their asylum or other status, they are to be shipped immediately, under Clause 2, to Rwanda—it could hardly be back to their home state, which is the other alternative. Rwanda carries a capacity of about 30,000 refugees. Secondly, once they get to Rwanda, for example, they will be barred from UK asylum status and left with Rwanda asylum status, if that does them any good. Thirdly, they will be branded as illegal immigrants and barred for ever from entering the UK. Their only sin has been that they travelled here from Afghanistan without the necessary paperwork and crossed the channel in a rubber dinghy, yet on arriving here they were seeking to escape the terrors—this is the important point—of the Taliban Government, probably in large numbers.
I will not detain your Lordships further, except to make it plain that, if we allow the Bill through in its present form, it will impose terrible consequences on a lot of refugees who have no opportunity to establish their asylum status. I could go through the mechanism of the Parliament Acts—I have my notes for it—but it suffices to say that, under them, we have the power to stop this, and we should at least consider it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief because my timetable has not allowed me to take a significant part in the Bill hitherto. However, I have attended quite a lot of the debate, which I started attending in a very troubled state of mind, completely uncertain about what I would do about this startling proposal. I sat through quite a bit of the Committee debate, and have listened today to the debate on the two amendments we have had, and I think that the underlying problem is being missed. We all agree that there is a huge problem with illegal migration and that, if we cannot find a solution, people will die in the channel in considerable numbers—they go up each year—by taking risks as they come here. We all admit that it is a global problem, so, if we suddenly become an easier country than others, we are likely to find significant pressures.
We all want to retain our excellent reputation—it is not unblemished, but better than those of most other European countries—for good race relations and an integrated community. During my lifetime, Britain has become a multicultural, multiracial society, and I am glad to say that I think the majority of my fellow citizens feel that the contribution that has been made, and the improvements to our society, are quite substantial as a result. As my noble friend said a moment ago, concern about the dinghies and old fishing boats bobbing on the ocean will, if we are not careful, rearouse all the bad feelings that we used to know, which we remember only too well from 20 or 30 years ago. That is why more than 60% of our population wish to stop illegal immigration.
I have tried to listen for a solution during the debates on the two groups of amendments but, sadly, the only solution being put forward is the rather extraordinary one by the Government that we simply cease to entertain illegal immigration and deport to safe places. I have not heard a single alternative policy put forward. I am not sure that it will work—I think I said that at an earlier stage—but I am still to hear anybody else offer anything but the possibility of litigation or huge numbers of people coming here as the practice of trying to get over the channel grows. We have to face up to our responsibilities. I am a lawyer and have a huge respect for law—abiding by the rule of law is one of the most important underlying principles of our constitution—but we cannot simply produce a lot of legalisms to shoot down the proposal without making any suggestion whatever of a practical kind that is likely to impact a great national problem, which we share as part of a global problem.
Finally—I am sorry that I have spoken for longer than I intended—I give this Government credit, not for coming up with the extraordinary idea of Rwanda but for making our contribution. We have done well with Ukrainian and Hong Kong refugees and admitted a lot of people from Afghanistan, although we could have made a better job of that. We are making our contribution to the global problem and taking a huge net increase to our population each year; we are getting some benefit, as it is helping our workforce. We are not becoming a walled-in, closed country. That is a good British contribution to a tremendous problem for the whole of the western world.
With no alternative policy in sight at all, this latest legal argument, which lies behind the key amendments here, is simply not a good enough reason for rejecting this policy. I do not know whether the policy will work, but we can no longer simply do nothing. To retreat into hours and hours of legalistic debate—which is very interesting, if you are interested in that kind of thing—is not rising to the occasion. Therefore, with a certain reluctance, I will yet again support the Government, which is not always my habit in this House.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I cannot let this opportunity to refute what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, go unanswered. There are alternatives. One of the real alternatives is that you have a proper process, and I am disappointed to hear the noble Lord—someone I admire and have great affection for—speak about the rule of law while forgetting what it means. It means that people must have a process to decide on whether their rights will be recognised. On asylum seekers, we have written our names at the bottom of—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Let me complete a sentence. We put our names at the bottom of the refugee convention saying that we would provide asylum to people, but you need a decision-making process to decide those who are legitimate and those who might purely be economic migrants. We will deny people that due process and the rule of law. That is where I disagree so sincerely with the noble Lord, and where I say that a process has to be put in place that is speedy and effective, and that it should be allowed for.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not recognise that those who apply through the legal, safe processes, and whose applications are rejected, will not still try to get to this country and will not be able to pay the people smugglers to put them on boats that cross the channel?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
We had a very good asylum process. Over the years of austerity, it was cut to the bone, including cuts to the number of people with the skills to assess those asylum applications. Now, the way to reverse that is to put in place, once again, good people making those assessments on the applications being made by people seeking asylum in this country and immediately, promptly, making decisions. Then, if the applications are not properly made, people can be deported to other places—but we cannot deny them due process, and that is what we are doing in this business of not letting people make an application and treating everybody the same. That is an affront to the rule of law.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am concerned that the amendments in this group would, in their different ways, undermine the purpose of the Bill, which is to deter people and prevent them using unsafe and illegal routes. The date from which it will apply is 7 March 2023. I disagree with the noble Lord who has tabled Amendment 6 and others to change that date: 7 March is very clear and not subject to the time your Lordships’ House devotes to scrutinising the Bill, often until the late hours of the day or the early hours of the next morning. Tackling this sort of migration is an urgent matter. People are losing their lives. It is to be dealt with now, not delayed or put off to another date.
On Amendment 10, on unaccompanied children who reach the age of 18 in this country, removal at 18 will in some way deter this sort of illegal immigration for those not removed before the age of 18. The problem of unaccompanied children is one I take very seriously. These are very unsafe routes. It is wrong to tolerate and, in effect, encourage them. If unaccompanied children are allowed to remain, there will be an incentive to send them here, despite the risks on these routes. The assumption will be that the children will be housed, fed and educated in the UK, and that this may bring them advantages in life even if they are removed at 18, perhaps providing grounds for their families to join them.
There is a further complication in that Amendment 10 introduces the idea of judging the best interests of the person at the age of 18. Though I accept that the measure of “best interests” has been adopted in this country in many cases, it can and does give rise to subjective judgments that raise more questions than they resolve, and I am not sure it will not do so in this Bill. More to the point, we do not owe it to anyone who enters the country in defiance of immigration controls to act in their best interests, when doing so has financial costs that must be borne by others. I therefore have grave reservations about these amendments, given that they would remove the clarity about when the measure comes into force and when and to whom it applies.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but I ask noble Lords to indulge me for a moment. I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Clarke and, indeed, with the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. However, for me, a resolution is available, but it would require this country, if necessary, to show global leadership and co-ordinate across the globe the actions that we can all take; all countries have the same problem. Rather than sitting here as an island and saying, “You’ve got to go somewhere else”—where else?—I would hope that we can find a way to show global leadership and organise safe and controlled measures that will deal with this international problem without needing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, to break international commitments we have made.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the second group of amendments centres on the major changes this Bill creates, particularly the duty to remove. We tabled Amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, in Committee and hoped to hear from the Government, but since we last discussed this issue significant progress has been made on putting in place returns agreements. That is the answer to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann: putting in place returns agreements and negotiating them vigorously, so that people can be deported as they are now. Nobody on this side of the House has said that should not happen, but greater effort needs to be made to put them in place.
Turning to Amendment, 6 on retrospection, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke to, I hope he will get the response he is looking for from the Minister; we are behind him in seeking that response. As he said, retrospectivity is the enemy of legal certainty. He quoted some powerful figures showing that the threat of stopping the boats is not having any effect on the number of people crossing the channel. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that brevity does not mean half-heartedness, and I will carry on being brief in addressing the points raised.
My noble friend Lady Lister challenged the Minister again on the child rights impact assessment; I look forward to discovering whether he can give a more convincing answer than he managed yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who I would count as a friend outside this Chamber, gave a speech he has given on a number of occasions, concerning the overall figures, which are indeed very serious. As he fairly pointed out, illegal migrants, who are the subject of the Bill before us, account for roughly 10% of the overall figures. Everyone on this side of the Chamber—indeed, throughout the House—acknowledges that there is a very serious issue. The focus right now is illegal migration, although I acknowledge the point he made about the wider context.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke compellingly, as ever, about the rights of the child. I find it mind-boggling that she was having breakfast with my noble friend Lord Coaker this morning in Warsaw. Both gave compelling speeches this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Hacking also spoke with passion, and I am glad that he will not be putting his amendment to the vote today.
This has been a relatively brief debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Clause 2 is the centrepiece of the scheme provided for in this Bill. Without it, the Bill as a whole would be fundamentally undermined. It therefore follows that I cannot entertain Amendment 8 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who frankly conceded its wrecking effect in his speech. At its heart, this Bill seeks to change the existing legal framework so that those who arrive in the UK illegally can be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or to a safe third country. As my noble friends Lord Clarke and Lord Howard, both fellow lawyers, so powerfully put it, we cannot sit by and do nothing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has set out, Amendments 6, 17, 22, 23 and 88 address the retrospective effect of the Bill. The second condition set out in Clause 2 is that the individual must have entered the UK on or after 7 March 2023—the day of this Bill’s introduction in the House of Commons. In effect, the noble Lord’s amendments seek to do away with the backdating of the duty to remove, as well as of other provisions in the Bill, so that they apply only to those who illegally enter the country from the date of commencement rather than from 7 March.
As I set out in response to the same amendments in Committee, the retrospective nature of these provisions is critical. Without it, we risk organised criminals and people smugglers seeking to exploit this, with an increase in the number of illegal arrivals ahead of commencement of the Bill. This would likely lead to an increase in these unnecessary and dangerous small boat crossings and could place even more pressure on not only our asylum system but our health, housing, education and welfare services. This risk will only grow as we get closer to Royal Assent and implementation. We must take action to prioritise support for those who are most in need and not encourage people smugglers to change their tactics to circumvent the intent of this Bill. I recognise that the retrospective application of legislation is not the norm and should be embarked upon only when there is good reason. I submit to the House that there is very good reason in this instance, given the scale of the challenge we face in stopping the boats.
Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, deals with entry into the United Kingdom via the Irish land border. As is currently the case, tourists from countries which require visas for them to come to the UK as visitors should obtain these before they travel. That said, I recognise the issue and accept that some individuals may inadvertently enter the UK without leave via the Irish land border. We are examining this issue further. I point the noble Baroness to the regulation-making power in Clause 3, which would enable us to provide for exceptions to the duty to remove where it would be appropriate to do so.
Amendment 10, spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, relates to the removal of an unaccompanied child once they reach the age of 18. To permit their removal only if it was in their best interests, even when they reach 18, would undermine the intent of this Bill. The Government must take action to undercut the routes that smuggling gangs are exploiting by facilitating children’s dangerous and illegal entry into the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor indicated, this amendment would increase the incentive for an adult to claim to be a child and encourage people smugglers to pivot and focus on bringing over more unaccompanied children via dangerous journeys. The effect would be to put more young lives at risk. That said, where a person enters the UK illegally as a young child, Clause 29 affords discretion to grant them limited or indefinite leave to remain if a failure to do so would contravene the UK’s obligations under the ECHR, which would, among other things, take in any Article 8 claims. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble and learned Baroness.
With regard to Amendment 9, as I indicated in Committee, formal returns agreements are not required to carry out removals, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that returns agreements can be useful to improve returns co-operation. We will seek to negotiate these where appropriate.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Perhaps I might ask the Minister for clarification. He referred to the 16 agreements, and he knows I asked him specifically for the list of those 16 countries, because the House of Lords Library could not find them for me. The Minister obviously did not think it necessary to write to me between Committee and Report, so can he list those 16 countries now?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As the noble Lord will recall, during our exchange I made clear that not all of those 16 agreements are in the public domain, so I am not going to provide him with the list he seeks.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I am very disappointed at the Minister’s response, for two reasons. First, despite being asked to produce evidence to show that retrospectivity has some factual basis for its inclusion, he has failed to answer that challenge, and he must have done so deliberately. I am afraid that leads me to be very suspicious about whether there is any such evidence whatever of a credible nature.
The second reason I am very disappointed in the Minister is that he knows perfectly well that it would be open to him to suggest a date other than the date of the commencement of the Act: for example, the day when this Bill does pass, which could be within days, or even today. That would, of course, be an element of retrospectivity, but it would be a considerable mitigation of what is provided in the Bill.
Given that discussions have taken place on these issues, I am very surprised that he has simply remained his intransigent self on this issue. The notion that a glut of small boats will be crossing the channel if the period between March and, say, now is not the subject of retrospectivity, is, frankly, absurd, ridiculous and completely lacking in any kind of credibility. I ask him to think about that; I am perfectly prepared not to press the amendment if he stands up and says he is prepared to consider that issue seriously and enter into discussions with other Ministers. Otherwise, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“(6A) An unaccompanied child who reaches the age of 18 must not be removed unless it is in their best interest to do so.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
With great regret, because I know that I do not have sufficient support from the House, I will not move my amendment.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
“(10A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) must be laid before Parliament after being made.(10B) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (10A) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(10C) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(10D) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (10B) that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment applies the “made affirmative” procedure to regulations under clause 3(7) (power to make provision for other exceptions from the duty in clause 2(1)).
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I can be relatively brief in explaining these government amendments. In short, they either respond to recommendations by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee or make minor drafting or technical refinements to the Bill. I turn first to the amendments responding to the DPRRC report.
Clause 3(7) confers a power on the Secretary of State to make exceptions from the removal duty under Clause 2. The Bill on introduction provided for such regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. The DPRRC suggested that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate. Amendment 11 provides for the “made affirmative” procedure to apply, given the need to make regulations quickly, including ahead of implementation of the duty to remove.
The DPRRC similarly recommended that regulations made under Clause 10 setting out the circumstances in which unaccompanied children may be detained should also be subject to the affirmative procedure. Again, we have accepted the committee’s recommendation, and Amendments 54, 60 and 62 make the “made affirmative” procedure apply on the first exercise of the power—again with a view to early implementation of the Bill—but thereafter the draft affirmative procedure will apply.
Amendments 129 and 169 relate to the power to amend the definition of a “working day” in Clause 37(8). This definition applies for the purpose of various time limits for appeals under Clauses 47 and 48. The DPRRC argued that the power was inappropriate in enabling changes to be made to the meaning of “working day” in relation to actions to be taken by persons bringing an appeal. Having considered carefully the committee’s report, we have concluded that the power is not required, and Amendments 129 and 169 remove it from the Bill.
Amendment 18 is a drafting amendment and simply ensures that Clause 5(3) and (4) dovetail in referring to a country or territory.
Amendments 38 to 41 are also drafting amendments. They simply supplement the reference to the Secretary of State in Clause 7(8) and (9)—which relate to the removal powers—with reference to an immigration officer; this is done for consistency with other provisions in Clause 7.
Finally, Amendments 81 to 84 and Amendment 86 relate to the definition of an “appropriate adult” in Schedule 2. Under Schedule 2, any search of a person under 18 in which that person is required to remove any clothing other than an outer coat, jacket or glove must be in the presence of an appropriate adult. These amendments ensure that the definition of an “appropriate adult” works across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we are happy to support the Government’s amendments. The Bill currently contains extensive secondary instruments that would limit Parliament’s ability to provide ongoing scrutiny. However, these changes still relegate decision-making to secondary legislation rather than being in the Bill. The Government may market these changes as a concession to this House, but we regard them more as a bare minimum.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 12 in relation to modern slavery, I will speak to my other amendments relating to Clauses 4 and 21. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for their support.
I am not going to repeat the extensive arguments from two long debates that we had in Committee, save to say that modern slavery is a brutal crime that involves sophisticated criminal networks buying and selling people for profit. Victims of this appalling crime may be forced to enter the UK illegally, having been coerced, deceived, forced against their will, their identity and decision-making powers stripped away. The problem with this Bill, if it is left unamended, is that it will completely undermine the Modern Slavery Act and see victims punished for crimes committed by their perpetrators, deported or held in detention centres, exacerbating pre-existing trauma.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, is no longer in his place, but I listened with great interest to his contribution, and I would say to him, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, that the deterrent effect that this Bill is meant to have is completely unproven. I certainly do not think that the answer is to break international treaties, nor do I think the answer is to undermine so drastically the Modern Slavery Act. Nor does it seem to me sensible to preside over the current chaos of the asylum system. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Altmann, that in the end there is no substitute for international collaboration and agreement, there is no substitute for effective measures to tackle people smugglers instead of their victims and there is no substitute for proper investment in a fast and efficient system for processing asylum claims.
Under the provisions in the Bill, where a protection claim or a human rights claim falls within Clause 4(5), it will be declared as inadmissible by the Secretary of State and will not be considered in the UK. Clause 21 extends the provision to individuals even where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the individual is a victim of trafficking and removes the modern slavery provisions providing such victims with protection. So the Bill will do nothing to break the cycle of exploitation or help people break free of modern slavery.
In Committee, one of the Minister’s responses was to claim that the modern slavery national referral mechanism process
“affords opportunities for those who enter the UK unlawfully to frustrate their removal”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1199.]
Where is the evidence? We know that, under NRM referrals last year, 90% of the competent authorities’ decisions were positive decisions—in other words that there were reasonable grounds that someone was a victim of trafficking and modern slavery—and 91% of conclusive grounds decisions were similarly positive. As my noble friend Lord Coaker said in Committee, the
“first responders are verified by the Home Office, and Home Office officials then make a reasonable grounds decision or not. A conclusive grounds decision is then made or not. It is Home Office officials who decide”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1674.]
Is the Minister essentially saying that he is disowning his own system over which he as a Minister and his colleagues preside?
We have not discussed the impact assessment as yet, and perhaps it is not really worth discussing, but on page 2 it says starkly that a non-monetised benefit of the Bill will be
“reduced pressure on Modern Slavery National Referral Mechanism processes”.
Indeed, and that pressure is reduced even more by just getting rid of the Modern Slavery Act entirely. I will quote, as I did yesterday, what Theresa May said, in the Second Reading debate in the Commons on this Bill:
“The Home Office knows that the Bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 593.]
My amendments first seek to remove from Clause 4 the inclusion of a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking from provision under which the Secretary of State must declare the claim inadmissible. My amendments to Clause 21, which are consequential, seek to restore current protections of victims of trafficking and modern slavery.
Like many noble Lords, I was very proud and very supportive of the Government when the Modern Slavery Act was taken through Parliament. This Bill undermines that Act completely. The Minister has not come up with one substantive piece of evidence to suggest that there is a fault in the actual system contained in that legislation. Unamended, this Bill is a completely untried and untested proposal, but it will undoubtedly strengthen the hands of the trafficking networks. Traffickers know; they keep people under control with threats that they will not receive help if they reach out to the authorities. We really must remove this provision. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my name is on this amendment and the others that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has tabled. He, like the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has given us an admirable example of brevity, and I do not think one needs to repeat what was said in Committee.
As somebody who wrote a biography of William Wilberforce, my parliamentary hero, in 1983 to mark the 150th anniversary of his death and the abolition of slavery, I was particularly proud when it was a Conservative Home Secretary who took through the other place the Modern Slavery Act. I was very glad indeed to be able to give that support. It was in the very best cross-party spirit of your Lordships’ House, and we all of us are genuinely proud—I particularly that it was a Conservative achievement but with support from friends and colleagues in all parts. This Bill before us is going to undermine an international achievement of far-reaching importance. To quote another famous Conservative, this is something up with which we should not put.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have also put my name to most of these amendments. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, and I do not propose to say anything more about them, this being Report. I just want to make two extra points.
As noble Lords know, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I got back from Warsaw today. I was chairing 14 countries discussing how Ukraine could be helped against exploitation and modern slavery. I had to deal with questions from so many other countries among the 14 as to what on earth the United Kingdom was doing in the Illegal Migration Bill. To my shame—and I admit that I was ashamed of what is happening— I could not for one moment support the Bill to those MPs from other countries; because this was a parliamentary meeting, everyone was an MP. It was really very distressing for me to stand up unable to support my own country.
The other point is that not only will victims not leave traffickers—the traffickers will say, with perfect truth, “Either you stay with us or you go to Rwanda. Which is worse? We suggest you stay with us”—but it will have a marked effect on prosecutions. There are already far too few prosecutions, and I think the impact on prosecutions of perpetrators and the extent to which modern slavery will increase over the years as a result of this Bill will be enormous.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I spent the whole of last week in Strasbourg, where there was a very similar response from the 47 nations of the Council of Europe towards what we are doing here, with bewildered questions about it put in debate. I simply add that to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about her experience in Warsaw.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 113A and 168B. In speaking to them, I will add briefly to the comments already made, all of which I associate myself with.
People have talked a lot about the reputational damage to this country worldwide as a consequence of this legislation. I jealously guard the reputation of Parliament, as many in this Chamber do, and it saddens me that this is in contrast with the modern slavery legislation that other noble Lords have referred to, which enjoyed consensus and which Theresa May constructed with pre-legislative scrutiny, bipartisan support and then bicameral support, with amendments made at every stage and the Government listening and incorporating those things. That is the way to make good legislation—not like this. Reputationally, this is damaging to Parliament.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, traffickers exercise control over their victims by convincing them that they will not receive help from the authorities if they seek it. The Bill will simply add credence to that claim.
I fully sympathise with the desire to deter people from using our modern slavery laws as a means to make a spurious claim for protection, but where is the evidence? The Government cannot point at any evidence of widespread abuse of our modern slavery system, yet they propose to remove basic protections for some of the most vulnerable people in our country. It is a basic principle of law—I can find it for you in the Book of Genesis if you want—that, in our desire to convict the guilty, we should not end up punishing the innocent. Amendment 12 is the very least we need in order to protect that vital principle.
Some 41% of referrals to the national referral mechanism relate to people exploited as children, which is why I also support Amendment 112 in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We must ensure that no child victim, whatever form of exploitation they have experienced or whatever crime they may have been coerced into committing, should be disqualified from accessing protection. We owe that to children. We have a moral responsibility at the very least to provide people with the opportunity to have their case heard through the national referral mechanism without fear of immediate detention or removal.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, told us during the last vote about the views of all the members of the Council of Europe and specifically mentioned Hungary questioning what the UK is doing—Hungary.
My name is on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on behalf of everyone on these Benches. The survivors of modern slavery should be protected and supported, not just because it is the right thing to do and the UK was lauded for it but to help the prosecution of criminals, of which we hear very little. The Bill indicates the extent to which the Government fail to put themselves in the shoes of victims and survivors, including those who have been trafficked here—who therefore have not come under their own steam—and particularly regarding the need for survivors to be in the UK to assist prosecutions. I could go on, but I will not.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is right that we need an independent anti-slavery commissioner in post. How long has it been—a year and how many months? A considerable number of criteria should be assessed, but we are where we are. We maintain our opposition to how slavery and trafficking are dealt with. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on his filleting of the Bill. We will be with him.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 96, along with those of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke earlier and with whom I agree, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It attempts to remove Clause 21(5) and (6). Those subsections mean that a person will be removed from this country unless it is “necessary” and there are “compelling circumstances” to show that it is necessary for the person to be present in this country for the dreadful crimes that we are talking about to be prosecuted. Was the Director of Public Prosecutions asked about the effect of this provision on the likely success of prosecutions? If this clause required it to be advisable for the person to be present for the purposes of the investigation and prosecution, I would be in favour of it, but it goes much further than that and is contrary to all good prosecution practice.
I confess that I have met a lot of organised criminals in my time—as a barrister. I have also met an awful lot of victims in my time, as a barrister and occasionally as a Member of this House and the other place. It is not a level playing field. If the Crown Prosecution Service were asked what was advisable, like anybody who has ever prosecuted a semi-serious case and done cases where some witnesses were abroad, as I have, it would say that it is always advisable to have the witness in court, on a local screen or interviewed in a statutory way if at all possible, not to have them on the other side of the globe somewhere—they are unlikely to turn up and will be intimidated by the process.
Let me briefly compare the criminal we are talking about with the victim. The criminal is familiar with the legal system. He—it is usually a he—is often charming. He is often wealthy and can hire lawyers who may even be Members of your Lordships’ House. He is malign, lethal and cocky in the face of the legal system. Those are the characteristics of serious organised criminals. As for the victim, what is she going to be like? She will be frightened. She is likely to be poor. She will be vulnerable and terrified of the legal system and, to use an Orwellian word, will feel like an “unperson”. Do we really want that?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, throughout the passage of the Bill here and in the other place, many people have raised serious concerns about it, and about its impact on victims of modern slavery. I fear sounding like a broken record, but I said at Second Reading and in Committee that the Bill should exclude those who are subject to abuse through the heinous crime of modern slavery. I echo the words of the former Prime Minister, Theresa May. When discussing the Bill in the other place, she said that it has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status. My position remains unchanged.
I would prefer that modern slavery was out of this Bill entirely. For that reason, I shall support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. They get right to the heart of the matter as they seek to amend the Bill to ensure that potential and recognised victims of human trafficking will not be detained or removed before they can apply to the NRM and have their application considered. In the spirit of those amendments, I have tabled Amendments 102A and 105A to remove Clauses 23 and 24 respectively.
In Committee, the Minister tried to reassure us that the agreement with Rwanda covers ensuring that
“any special needs that may arise as a result of a relocated person being a victim of modern slavery are accommodated”.—[Official Report, 12/6/23; col. 1704.]
The impact assessment published on Monday was more tentative, saying there could be
“a perceived welfare loss for the individuals relocated to a third country who would otherwise be granted support in the UK although this may be mitigated to the extent that the support provided in a third country is comparable”.
This is classic British understatement. We all know that there will be loss of support. The Salvation Army has described the Bill as “potentially devastating”. The US State Department’s 2023 Trafficking in Persons Report, published since Committee, lists Rwanda as a tier 2 country, whereas the UK is a tier 1 country, and said that Rwanda did not refer any victims to services. So, I am far from reassured.
The impact assessment says that one of the strategic objectives of the Bill is “to protect the vulnerable”, but it is proposing mass detention of modern slavery victims under Clause 10 and removing their rights, under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, to a recovery period and support. I find myself in agreement once more with the former Prime Minister Theresa May, who described the Bill as
“a slap in the face for those of us who actually care about the victims of modern slavery”. —[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 808.]
The Government are arguing that this is a Bill of short-term pain for long-term gain. For victims, it will be short-term and long-term pain. The JCHR’s Legislative Scrutiny: Illegal Migration Bill concluded that the Bill not only breaches international obligations but
“may also result in the increase in trafficking and slavery”.
With this in mind, I find myself extremely disappointed that an analysis of the potential number of victims affected by the Bill was not covered in the impact assessment. Particularly at such a late stage in the passage of such significant, flagship legislation, it is troubling that we do not have to hand the most basic information in order to make reasonable determinations, based on the evidence, about the efficacy of the Government’s proposals.
As I said in the previous debate in this House, as someone who introduced a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly to reduce trafficking and slavery, I cannot support the inclusion of modern slavery victims in this Bill, so I shall be supporting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
However, your Lordships are wise enough to take a belt-and-braces approach to this Bill, so I am also supporting the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. They would mitigate some of the concerns about the lack of support by ensuring that victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK will still be able to access the support they need to recover. Why? It is simply the right thing to do.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to support not only Amendment 103 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Morrow, but any and all the amendments in this group. This is for two principal reasons. First, the approach we need to take to the victims of the heinous evil of human trafficking must be compassionate, sympathetic and supportive. When the Government produced its now sadly shelved Bill on kept animals, it contained a clause which sought to outlaw the transporting of live animals for slaughter. But that approach—treating human beings as a commodity; as raw meat, effectively—is precisely what human traffickers are doing to their victims. We should show that same level of compassion to victims of human trafficking.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95 and the consequential Amendments 99, 101 and 104 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who unfortunately cannot be in his place today. He has asked me to speak on his behalf and has made it clear that if he were here, and if he could not find agreement with the Government, he would test the opinion of the House.
This amendment has been slightly modified since Committee in order to ensure parity for victims across the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. The core intention remains the same: to preserve the existing recovery period for victims of modern slavery.
I emphasise one point in particular: removing modern slavery protections will not help stop the boats. In fact, it will make reducing illegal migration harder. Many victims of modern slavery, often through no fault of their own, have come illegally under the terms of this Bill, even if not necessarily by boat. The protections which give them the space to escape from their exploiters will be removed. This is bad in itself, but the really relevant point for the Government is that, as a result of removing those protections, prosecutions will become harder, as others have pointed out. The position of the people traffickers and criminal gangs who bring people into the United Kingdom illegally and hold them in modern slavery will be strengthened. The core purpose of this Bill—to prevent illegal migration—will be undermined.
The evidence is clear: for a successful prosecution, support for victims must come before engagement with the police and courts system. As drafted, the Bill inverts that, setting a high bar for co-operation before any person can be considered for an exemption from immediate deportation. In Committee, when asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the effect of removing victims of modern slavery to another country on the likelihood of their co-operation with prosecutions, my noble friend the Minister said:
“One would hope that a victim of trafficking would want to facilitate the prosecution of their traffickers”. [Official Report, 12/6/23, col. 1705.]
Most victims do, but they need support in order to do that. They need trust in the system. Threatening them with immediate deportation is not the way to build that trust, and I am afraid that I do not share my noble friend’s confidence that prosecutors will be just as easily able to work with victims in Rwanda as they can with victims in the United Kingdom.
These amendments do not confer a permanent right to settlement or residence in the United Kingdom on modern slavery victims. They retain the existing 30-day recovery period and provision for proven victims to stay in the United Kingdom only at the Secretary of State’s discretion—for example, to support prosecutions. That is not really an exclusion or exemption of the sort my noble friend the Minister says will fatally undermine the Bill, but it can create the space needed for victims of modern slavery to receive the support they need to escape the cycle of abuse and begin co-operating with the police. I hope the Government can recognise the benefits of this and re-think their position.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise to support many of the amendments in this group, but in particular Amendment 12. I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving such an important amendment.
I start by saying that, as a proud Labour politician, I am the first to recognise the phenomenal achievement, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, pointed out, of the Conservative Government in passing the Modern Slavery Act. That is important, and he pointed out the cross-party nature of that. That is why it is so bewildering that we have a Conservative Government driving forward this legislation.
Notwithstanding that, Amendment 12 goes to the heart of the various amendments. It is important to reiterate the explanatory note to my noble friend’s amendment, which simply seeks
“to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered”.
That seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but of course, under this Bill, everybody who arrives irregularly —primarily by small boat, as far as the Government are concerned—is automatically excluded. That inevitably means that victims or potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking will be caught by the legislation and their needs will not be met.
We have talked about evidence. Helpfully, on Monday the impact assessment was at last published. The Government recognise the draconian nature of these provisions, as they have put in their own sunset clause, and they say they are doing this because the system is being gamed. On page 24, the impact assessment states:
“For context, of the 83,236 people that arrived in the UK on small boats between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022, 7 per cent (6,210 people) were referred to the NRM”.
Of course, as was made clear, that 7% of those 83,000 were referred by government-approved officials. They were not necessarily then deemed to have conclusive grounds; they were referred in order to have their situation considered.
That is the issue Amendment 12 seeks to address. It does not say there are not sometimes people who apply who should not, but that the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act is to ensure that victims have the right to have their case heard, to be supported where necessary, and to not be removed from the country during that process. Amendment 12 is therefore perfectly reasonable and if my noble friend chooses to test the opinion of the House, I hope that many of us will support it, because it is a simple but very important amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has explained, his amendments would prevent the detention and removal of any person who meets the conditions in Clause 4 and who is the subject of a NRM referral until a conclusive grounds decision and any appeal has been determined. The current average time taken from referral to conclusive grounds decisions, made in January to March 2023, across the competent authorities, was 566 days. Against that backdrop, these are wrecking amendments. They would profoundly undermine the Government’s ability to tackle the threat to life arising from the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings and the pressure they place on our public services.
Amendments 95, 99, 101 and 104 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall seek to mitigate the effect of the provisions in the Bill in a more targeted way, but here too I have concerns that the amendments would undermine what we seek to do in these provisions. As I set out in Committee, the NRM presents clear opportunities for abuse by those who would seek to frustrate removal. It is worth repeating the statistics relating to NRM referrals of people arriving in small boats, which demonstrate how the NRM could be open to abuse.
In 2021, 404 people were detained for return after arriving in the United Kingdom on a small boat, 73% of whom were referred to the NRM while in detention. The latest published figure, for the period January to September 2022, is only slightly lower, at 65%. This is a large increase on earlier years; just 6% of those detained for return in 2019 were referred to the NRM while in detention. So far, only a minority of people who arrived on small boats have been detained for return, but if enforcement activity is greatly expanded, as it would be under the terms of the Bill, and if this rate of referral continues, the number of referrals could be substantially higher. These figures cannot be ignored.
I can provide some assurance to my noble friend and other noble Lords. The Bill does not impact NRM referrals of British citizens or persons who are in the UK without valid leave, having overstayed, and who are therefore, I suggest, more susceptible to exploitation in the UK; nor will unaccompanied children arriving on small boats be affected while they remain under 18. They are not subject to the duty to remove until they turn 18. Finally, the Bill provides for an exception to the application of the public order disqualification where it is necessary for someone to remain in the United Kingdom to co-operate with an investigation or prosecution related to their exploitation.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Can the Minister explain whether the figures he has given us are in the impact assessment? It would have helped us if they were; I apologise if I have missed them. Has the Minister changed the way he is coming to the percentage figure? Are the Government now saying that it is not the percentage of the number of people who arrive by small boats but the percentage of those who arrived by small boats and are detained? The percentages are going to be significantly higher because the numbers who are detained are not the sort of numbers I was talking about. The number I quoted is from the Government’s own figures. What figures are the Government using and how are they coming to them? Perhaps he can explain to the Chamber how many of the 83,236 people who arrived by small boats were detained, so we can get some idea of the percentages he is talking about.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
First, I am afraid I have read so many documents in the past few days that I cannot immediately recollect whether the stats are in the IA. I will confirm whether they are, and I am sure I will be able to do that shortly.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Order! Secondly, I suggest that the material figures are those in detention. It is a fundamental part of the scheme that people will be detained and removed. We can see from the figures that those in detention have been utilising NRM claims; you can see the increase from the statistics I gave a moment ago. On the noble Lord’s final point, those are all published statistics, and I can confirm that the 65% figure is in paragraph 143 of the impact assessment.
I remind noble Lords that the application of the public order disqualification is firmly grounded in the provisions of the European convention against trafficking, or ECAT. Article 13(3) of ECAT clearly provides that states are not bound to provide a recovery and reflection period on the grounds of public order. It is again worth stressing that these provisions are time-limited. We recognise their exceptional nature, and the Bill expressly provides for Clauses 21 to 24 to cease to apply after two years unless both Houses agree to extend their operation for no more than 12 months at a time.
For the reasons I have set out, we consider that this sunsetting provision is more appropriate than the sunrise provision proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his Amendment 113A.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I wonder whether the Minister could help me on this. On the figure of over 500 days in the NRM, from beginning to end, is that entirely due to Home Office officials not getting through it in a timely way, or is there any other reason why it is taking so long?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
The NRM process requires the gathering of evidence and input from the party, so it is not down entirely to Home Office resourcing issues.
The appointment of the new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner is at an advanced stage, and I am sure that once appointed they will want to monitor closely the impact of these provisions.
In relation to my noble friend’s amendments, I repeat the assurance that my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister made in the other place: namely that we will consider additional protections through statutory guidance for those who have experienced exploitation in the United Kingdom. We are continuing to develop such guidance and in doing so will adopt an appropriate balance between protecting victims of modern slavery and delivering the intent of this Bill.
As regards Amendment 103, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, quite properly raises the issue of how the modern slavery provisions in the Bill sit with the continued operation of the relevant EU directives in Northern Ireland. As I have said in earlier debates in Committee, the provisions in the Bill are compatible with the Windsor Framework. In particular, in the context of this amendment we do not consider that the 2011 anti-trafficking directive falls within the scope of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
Amendments 96, 102 and 105, tabled respectively by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, relate to the presumption that it is not necessary for a person to remain in the United Kingdom to co-operate with an investigation. As I outlined to the Committee, remote participation is now the norm in the workplace, and the criminal justice system is no different. It is simply no longer the case that a victim of crime needs to be in face-to-face contact with the police or others to assist with an investigation. In some cases, victims may even feel safer providing virtual or video-recorded evidence. I assure noble Lords that we are working to ensure that the relevant technology, interpreters and intermediaries are available where needed.
We have provided for statutory guidance to support decision-making by caseworkers when determining if there are compelling circumstances why the presumption should be set aside in a particular case, but there is no evidence as to why, in the majority of cases, such co-operation cannot continue by email, messaging and video conferencing. The presumption in Clauses 21(5), 23(5) and 24(5) is therefore perfectly proper and should be retained.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I would be really grateful if the Minister could answer the question I asked him as to whether the Director of Public Prosecutions had been consulted about the effect on modern slavery and trafficking cases if the victim was not merely in another studio in another building in London or Manchester but in a country thousands of miles away, with no facilities to encourage or even compel them to give evidence.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I do not know whether the DPP has been consulted on that point but I will certainly find out and write to the noble Lord.
Amendment 112, put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would prevent the public order disqualification provided for in the 2022 Act being applied to a person whose positive reasonable grounds decision was based on exploitation which had occurred before they were 18. It is, in our view, entirely appropriate for the public order disqualification provided for in that Act to be capable of applying to all relevant individuals, including those exploited as children. In this regard, it is important to note that the public order disqualification in the 2022 Act applies only to specified persons, such as those who have been convicted of a serious criminal offence. In such cases, the age at which the exploitation took place is, I submit, irrelevant to the threat to public order an individual now poses, and we cannot tie our hands on this matter on the basis of the time at which exploitation took place.
The modern slavery measures in the Bill, alongside the others, are intended to deal with the immediate and pressing public risk arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK. We need to take bold action and now. This Bill will not achieve its objective if removals are put on hold for over 500 days awaiting a conclusive grounds decision. As I indicated at the start, these amendments will quite simply wreck the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be content to withdraw his Amendment 12. If he is not, I invite the House to reject it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but he referred again to the 500-plus days involved in the NRM process. Earlier, in response to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, he said that one of the reasons for that was examining the evidence. However, since he cites this as a reason for going ahead with these appalling proposals, can he explain to the House why it is not possible to shorten that period? Is he content that a process that takes more than 500 days is humane?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Considerable efforts are taken to seek to shorten the period but that is not an easy process. I agree with the noble Baroness that we should aspire to have a shorter period but we have to legislate for the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.
I can now confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the CPS was indeed consulted in respect of these provisions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, to all noble Lords who have spoken and to my noble friend Lord Coaker for his strong support for my Amendment 12, which, as he says, goes to the heart of the argument.
I was a little surprised by the Minister describing my amendments as wrecking amendments. Noble Lords who have known me over the years know that I do not indulge in that kind of approach. I am seeking to preserve the integrity of the Modern Slavery Act.
The Minister’s argument about 566 days and the number of referrals is not a substantive one. The statistic that is most telling, as I repeated again, is that under the NRM 90% of the competent authority decisions last year were positive decisions, in that there were reasonable grounds that someone was a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, so the process stands. The Minister has not produced any argument whatever against the NRM process; he has simply talked about the length of time and the numbers, which goes back to his department and its lack of investment in making sure that the system works effectively.
My real concern here is that, instead of dealing with the perpetrators of the awful crimes around which modern slavery takes place, it is the victims who are going to be penalised. I looked back today at the Second Reading debate of the Modern Slavery Act in your Lordships’ House and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, the then Home Office Minister, who said:
“Modern slavery is an evil against which this Government are determined to take a stand”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 241.]
How sad it is that the Government have held back from that and are basically undermining it. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Etherton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 1 tabled by Baroness Chakrabarti and would enable an application for judicial review to be made while the applicant is in the UK regarding an act or omission in conflict with the provisions there.
Lord Dubs
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make asylum and human rights claims admissible from unaccompanied children, who are exempted from the duty to remove by Clause 3. This would continue current policy under which unaccompanied children’s asylum claims are not subject to the inadmissibility regime.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for supporting this amendment.
The issues are pretty clear and I shall be ever so brief. We have been over these arguments in principle both in Committee and, implicitly, in some of the earlier amendments on Report. The clear point is this: the impact of the Bill will be that children claiming asylum in the UK will automatically be turned away, based on the method by which they have travelled and arrived in the UK. That, in effect, will mean that children will be refused an application for asylum, regardless of their need for protection as child refugees.
This is in the light of the most recent figures, which show that, of all the unaccompanied children who arrived and whose cases were determined, 86% were given refugee status. Therefore, we are saying no to the equivalent children who will be coming in the future. We are dealing with some of the most vulnerable of all refugees. We know that. Even the Minister said in Committee:
“We recognise the particular vulnerabilities in relation to unaccompanied children”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1168.]
There has been virtually nothing in the impact assessment about children. At Question Time the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. Earlier this month, the committee expressed concerns about the potential impact of the Illegal Migration Bill on children and went on to specify in detail how it would work.
The Government seem to think that, by having this, somehow children will stop coming over. I do not believe there is any evidence to support that. I have talked to some of the children in the Calais area. Those who get to Calais are absolutely determined to continue their journey.
The Government seem to think that most of the world’s refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Most of the world’s refugees, in any case, are in countries adjacent to the one they fled. We know that the majority of children who reach France claim asylum there; it is a minority who claim asylum in this country.
What we are doing with this Bill is shutting the door on some of the most vulnerable human beings on earth: refugee children. These are children who have escaped the most appalling situations. The Government was wobbly even in the Commons during Report on this issue, and the right thing would be for them to accept this amendment. There is absolutely no argument why they should turn their backs on children, the most vulnerable refugees that there are. I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the second amendment in this group, which is in my name and the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I obviously support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as an absolutely important amendment.
The amendment I am proposing has two purposes. The first is to provide a route out of the limbo which thousands of people could fall into if they were not removed from this country and had to remain here without any opportunity to make their case. The second purpose is to provide a backstop for the Government so that they can bring matters to a conclusion where there is no conclusion in this Bill.
This amendment provides a backstop for the Government if, for whatever reason, an individual cannot be removed within six months. It means that the Government do not have to indefinitely support them. The Government can consider their asylum claim in the UK which, if successful, means they can get on with their life in the United Kingdom. If it is unsuccessful, they can be removed to their country of origin. Without this amendment, the Government are unable, because of the powers in the Bill, to consider their asylum application in the United Kingdom. So, if a safe third country cannot be identified for a person’s removal, the Home Secretary has no way to discharge the responsibility to them.
The economic impact assessment of the Bill assumes that people will be detained for 40 days before removal. In fact, I will quote the Minister at the beginning of today’s debate. He said:
“We need a scheme that will enable removals in days and weeks, not … in months”.
If that is the case, and the Government are true to their meaning, this backstop will never apply. But it is a backstop in case it does not work. We have not seen the evidence that it might work. The backstop will ensure that taxpayers’ money is not tied up in supporting thousands of people indefinitely. It is not a commitment to spend additional money but a financially prudent course of action that will help planning for both national Government and local authorities in this country.
This amendment also recognises the human dignity of each individual. Keeping them in a state of limbo, unable to support themselves and their families, and dependent on the state, is not healthy for any society. It has the great risk of fuelling exploitation in the United Kingdom.
The migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda is currently the only removal agreement that the UK has in place that includes third country nationals. The legal and practical challenges faced by that scheme are well documented and, even if it becomes operational, it will not be possible to remove to Rwanda all of the thousands of people whose claims are deemed inadmissible. That is why this backstop clause for the Government is so important.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German, to which I have added my name, and in strong support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
The noble Lord, Lord German, spoke of limbo, which is exactly what we will create here if we do not pass Amendment 15. These people will be detained indefinitely, in the dark about when they will be sent somewhere and in the dark about where they will be sent. That simply is out of keeping with the traditions of the society in which we are proud to live.
The Government will no doubt say that the possibility that a case might be allowed to start in the asylum process would significantly weaken deterrence. That seems to be the principal argument against today’s amendments—even, astonishingly, against the modern slavery amendment a few moments ago. The Government should perhaps read their own impact assessment, in which paragraph 31 says:
“The academic consensus is that there is little to no evidence suggesting changes in a destination country’s policies have an impact on deterring people from leaving their countries of origin or travelling without valid permission, whether in search of refuge or for other reasons. Non-policy drivers of behaviour (for example diaspora, shared language or culture, and family ties) are also known to be strong factors influencing the choice of final destination”.
I believe that that is the case.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke powerfully in reaction to the noble Lords, Lord Clarke and Lord Howard, about the importance for the rule of law domestically and respect for international law of allowing the due process of hearing an asylum claim to take place. We all know that it needs to be streamlined and to have more resources put into it, but, basically, it is a sane system. The idea of limbo is insane, immoral and illegal, and, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, would be costly. The case for Amendments 14 and 15 is rock-solid.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which I strongly support, as noble Lords can imagine. I agree with everything that was said in support of Amendment 14, and I will add only two short points.
The first is that, over the years that I have been in this House, the Government have spoken again and again about the welfare and best interests of children. In the Bill, it is notable how the best interests and the welfare of children are totally ignored. Secondly, I visited Calais and met a number of young people, under 18, who were determined to come to this country. There was no question of them being pushed by any adults— I never saw an adult in any of the areas of Calais that I visited. They are determined to come, and they have good reasons to have fled their country. I heard harrowing stories of why they wanted to get away. Quite simply, this amendment would put back what they are entitled to and what is in their best interests. It should be supported.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two brief points in support of Amendment 14. Before that I repeat the question I posed earlier: where is the child rights impact assessment that we were promised? It is now Report, and we really ought to have it.
My first point is that, in Committee, I quoted from the previous Lords Minister and from Home Office guidance that unaccompanied young children are
“not suitable for the inadmissibility processes”.
I asked the Minister to explain why, given these recent statements, they are considered suitable now, and on what evidence this policy volte-face is based. I did not get a reply, so I would welcome one now, please.
Secondly, last week, I attended Barnardo’s launch of its report A Warm Welcome: A Blueprint for Supporting Displaced Children Seeking Protection in the UK. We were given a booklet about a comic book for children seeking safety, co-designed by children and young people with lived experience of the asylum journey. It ended with a letter to the children who follow in their footsteps, which said:
“I know when you came to the UK you had a difficult time. I know this because I did too. So don’t worry, everything is going to be ok … You have been through a difficult time but you are safe now … You can forget the past because you are safe and you can look to the future and start your life here”.
I was close to tears reading this poignant letter because, if the Bill goes through in its present form, the children who follow will no longer be able to start a life here. The booklet was called Journeys of Hope; the Bill destroys that hope. This amendment would at least give back some hope to unaccompanied children who reach the UK through irregular routes.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group, but I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of Amendment 14, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham is a co-signatory, although he is unable to be present today.
The Bill will prevent potentially thousands of children ever claiming refugee protection in the UK, however serious their protection needs may be and, disturbingly, regardless of the fact that they may not have had any say in the decision to travel here irregularly. Let us be absolutely clear: this means that vulnerable unaccompanied children who have fled unimaginable horrors will arrive to find that they will be detained and then potentially accommodated by the Home Office outside the established care system. All of this is not in order for their asylum cases to be heard and assessed but simply to deter others.
Given that no return agreements are yet in place, and that the Government have not provided any new information about how returns will exponentially increase, the overwhelming majority of individuals will be left to languish in perpetual legal limbo, as we have heard, and financial precarity. I argue that this is unacceptable for any asylum seeker, but for an unaccompanied child it is simply unforgivable.
Last year, close to nine out of 10 separated children were granted refugee status. Some 99% of unaccompanied children arriving from Afghanistan and Eritrea were granted status. It is these children—those with a genuine need for protection—who will be left outside the asylum system unless the Government change course.
Children’s development is intrinsically linked to secure attachment and safety, but the state is choosing to prescribe for them an uncertain and harmful future. This is counter to the Home Secretary’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children and to prevent punishment of a child on the basis of status or the activities of their parents, as obligated by both domestic and international law.
The amendment would grant re-entry to the asylum system for those separated children the Secretary of State is unable to remove. It is a pragmatic measure that would go some way towards protecting children from these adverse impacts, which are neither tolerable nor justifiable. I urge the Minister to relent on these amendments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He quoted a letter that the Minister very kindly sent to me two days ago about the reaction of the Committee on the Rights of the Child of the United Nations. That communication demonstrated that the committee found that if we did not amend the Bill—and the amendment we are looking at now is obviously required—we would be in breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention was signed by the late Baroness Thatcher. I do not believe we should be in the business of ignoring the view that we will breach that international obligation we undertook in 1990.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, my noble friend Lord Scriven has signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. All of us on these Benches wholeheartedly support that amendment, in addition to Amendment 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord German.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in the spirit of reciprocity, we wholeheartedly support Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German, as well as my noble friend Lord Dubs’s amendment.
My noble friend’s amendment points out that we should absolutely not rule out unaccompanied children from being admissible if they come via an illegal route. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords, this would not be in keeping with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German, is a practical amendment on granting re-entry into the asylum system for those the Government are not able to remove, and we are happy to support it. It would avoid potentially thousands of children, as well as other asylum seekers, being kept in limbo. As he very fairly pointed out, this is a backstop for the Government because, if they are true to their aspirations for the Bill, they will never have to use the noble Lord’s amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord German, have explained, these amendments relate to the provision in Clause 4(2), which provides for protection claims and relevant human rights claims made by persons who meet the conditions in Clause 2 to be declared inadmissible.
On Amendment 14, we recognise the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, as observed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which is why we need to prevent them making unnecessary and life-threatening journeys to the UK. If we are serious about wanting to prevent and deter these journeys, it is crucial that we maintain the position currently set out in the Bill. We must avoid creating a perverse incentive to put unaccompanied children on small boats and make dangerous journeys.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I point out that the Bill provides for a wholly new scheme. We are in a different position from the one we were in in the last Session, when the Nationality and Borders Bill, as it then was, was debated.
As I have said before, the Secretary of State is not required to make arrangements to remove an unaccompanied child from the UK, but there is a power to do so. The Bill sets out that this power will be exercised only in limited circumstances ahead of them reaching adulthood, such as for the purposes of reunion with a parent or where removal is to a safe country of origin. Where an unaccompanied child is not removed, pursuant to the power in Clause 3, we continue to believe that it is appropriate for the Bill to provide for the duty to remove to apply once they turn 18. To provide otherwise will, as I have already said, put more young lives at risk and split up more families by encouraging the people smugglers to put more and more unaccompanied children on to the small boats. In answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, the Bill is very much about protecting children.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, obviously I find the Minister’s reply disappointing. He dangled an incentive that there might be some regulations in the future that might do something to ameliorate the provisions of the Bill—but that is not good enough. We are dealing with very vulnerable people, and if the Minister wants to threaten them by saying that we will treat them badly, because that will stop them wanting them to come, there is no point dangling some regulation for the future that might change that. That does not seem logical to me.
I wish the Minister had been with me when I was talking to a young man who came to this country when he was 15 or 16, but who would not have been able to come here under the provisions of the Bill. He was so excited to be here. He was in education and wanted to be an athletics instructor, and he was jolly good at it.
Finally, I was talking to a young Syrian outside the Palace a few years ago—again, he was 14 or 15. This may not be a very telling argument, but I will describe it anyway. He pointed at this Palace and asked me, “You know what I want to do in life?”. I said no and asked him to tell him. He said, “I want to become an MP”.
These are the sorts of people who would benefit from the amendment. It is only humane that we should pass the amendment. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord German
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Home Secretary to consider a protection claim or a human rights claim if the applicant has not been removed from the UK within six months of the claim being deemed inadmissible, and disapply other provisions at this point.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the explanation of why the Government think this amendment ought not to be accepted, on the grounds that they are going to remove people within weeks of their arrival in the United Kingdom, without any evidence. It is also the case, I think, that this House generally does not believe that will happen. As it is a backstop for the Government to save money, I think it absolutely appropriate that we do our job to help the Government along and make sure that the public finances are not screwed up in that way. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a technical problem and it has been decided that the Division will be deferred. We will take the Division together with the next Division after the next group.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
Amendment 17 is consequential.
Amendment 17
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that protection or human rights claims made before the Bill comes into force cannot be declared inadmissible under the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment supplements the reference to a country in subsection (4)(b) of clause 5 with a reference to a territory, for consistency with the earlier reference in subsection (4) to a country or territory within subsection (3)(a) or (b) of that clause.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and others in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew, seek to ensure that asylum seekers can only be removed to third countries or territories listed in Schedule 1 if those countries are places where they will be protected from onward refoulement in breach of the Refugee Convention and be able to be recognised as a refugee and receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention (if so recognised).
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has asked me to speak on his behalf to this series of amendments. My name is on Amendment 33, and I strongly support the noble Lord’s amendments. As we all know, the refugee convention was signed by the British Government. These amendments look at a major concern about safe countries.
It is extraordinary that the Government have put 150 countries in Schedule 1, as I referred to in Committee, given that we know that only two on the list support this. We are told that, even with the additional number that the Minister has told us about, there is no agreement with the majority of countries and that some of the countries with which there are agreements, notably India, have not signed the refugee convention. How can the Government expect to send migrants and refugees to a country that has not signed it? It seems quite extraordinary. The Minister then tells us that it is such a good thing that these countries have joined. It is not only India, but I raise it as an important example.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 20 and 24 to 28 in my name.
It is notable that, despite Government Ministers on the Front Bench trying to promote this Bill in such vehement terms, for the votes in this Chamber the Conservatives cannot get more than 50% of their Members to support the Government’s position. That speaks volumes.
Amendment 20 seeks to restore the fundamental principle that, if people are to be deemed admissible to be removed to a safe country, it should be on the basis of the individual circumstances of their case and after a review of the circumstances that they will face. The Government are turning this on its head, which is simply wrong. We heard earlier about the due process of law. Amendment 20 seeks to restore what the Government seek to remove—the due process of law.
Amendments 24 to 28 follow from the comments of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on those countries in the schedule that are not party to the refugee convention—India, Kosovo, Mauritius, Mongolia and South Korea. We do not know, and the Minister will not tell us, whether we have a return and resettlement agreement with any of those countries because, as he told me earlier, these are secret agreements. What kind of arrangements do a Government enter into with another Government that would be secret? The only thing I can think is that the other Government have asked us to keep it secret, for reasons that the Minister will not divulge. But he is asking us to legislate and determine that they are safe countries.
There is an inconsistency with the Government’s position on Section 80B of the 2002 Act, which was amended by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, over the definition of a “safe third state”. As amended, the 2002 Act is clear about what it is: a safe third state is to be judged with regard to what is relevant to the individual person. Section 80B(4) defines a safe third state, and Section 80B(4)(b) states that one of the characteristics of a safe state is that the person will not be sent to another state—refoulement. There is nothing in this Bill that will give protection to that individual.
In that same section, the refugee convention is specifically mentioned, both in subsection (4)(b)(i) and (4)(c), with regard to a criterion of safety for an individual. I regret very much that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is not in his place. We had a constitutional law lecture at the start of Report on the duality of the system, and if I understood correctly, we should not impose requirements on Executives with regard to international conventions. The law—and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was Justice Minister at the time of the 2022 Bill being taken through Parliament—states categorically that this is a requirement we have put in statute: other Executives have to be a member of the refugee convention or we will not send people to them. What kind of double standard is it that it is fine for us to insist on receiving countries adhering to the convention, but it would be fundamentally wrong for us to adhere to that same convention? This is a double standard we absolutely should not support.
I have leave from my colleagues to say that we on these Benches will strongly support Amendment 37 if the opinion of the House is tested. These aspects are fundamental to the Bill; they are about principle, but also practicalities and our standing in the world. Process of law is very important and we should protect it, and that is why these amendments should be supported.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I too strongly support Amendment 37 and will vote for it if the opinion of the House is tested. I would also like to support the remarks of my noble and learned friend Baroness Butler-Sloss, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in moving those earlier amendments, particularly as they relate to safe countries.
My Amendment 21 would insert into Clause 5 the following:
“No person may be removed to a country listed in Schedule 1 if doing so would put that person at risk due to their protected characteristics as defined in section 4 of the Equality Act 2010”.
I raised this issue in Committee and I made a long speech, but I will not detain the House for long this evening. I especially cited the example of Nigeria and I do so again this evening, not least because I heard this morning of the case of Usman Buda, a Muslim, who was murdered in Sokoto state in north-west Nigeria in the last few days, because it was alleged—I repeat: alleged—that he had blasphemed. It is just over a year since the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel, a Christian, at Shehu Shagari College of Education, again following an unsubstantiated accusation of blasphemy. Nigeria is one of the 71 countries that criminalises blasphemy. It is worth remembering that this year is the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18 of which insists that everyone has the right to believe, not to believe or to change their belief. That is why my amendment seeks to protect people who will be in danger if they are sent back to places like Nigeria because of their belief, non-belief or their desire to change belief.
When the Minister replies, will he say also how the Bill is compatible with Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010? Especially in light of what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said a moment ago about amendments affecting people because of their orientation, it is clearly in breach of that and of Article 18, for reasons of faith. That is enough on that subject for now. It is an issue we can return to later in our proceedings, when we come to not just safe countries but how we deal with people with these protected characteristics.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to address Amendment 37 in my name. I am extremely grateful to those who have co-signed: the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Scriven, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. This amendment addresses the countries specified as appropriate for removal in Schedule 1. A number of those countries are shown as not safe for women, but none of the specified countries or territories is shown as unsafe for any other diverse or minority group.
The amendment introduces a new clause after Clause 6, in which Schedule 1 countries in respect of which members of the LGBTQ+ community have a well-founded fear of persecution are specified, and to which they must not be removed. Secondly, provision is made for there to be no removal of anyone, whatever their background or ethnicity, for example, to countries where there is a proposal to commence proceedings under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union. Finally, subsection (2) of the new clause empowers the Secretary of State by regulation to add to or remove such countries or territories.
In order to sustain this amendment, I need to refer briefly to the reasons why each of the countries mentioned in the amendment as being hostile and unsafe places for LGBTQ+ people are indeed unsafe. I will refer to Home Office country of origin information, Home Office country policy and information notes, known as CPINS, and independent reports. I will deal with this very quickly, and I will start with Brazil. According to Agência Brasil, the dossier on murders of and violence against Brazilian transvestites and transsexuals compiled by ANTRA—the National Association of Transvestites and Transsexuals—states that 131 trans and transvestite people were murdered in Brazil in 2022, making it the country with the most deaths of people from this community for the fourteenth consecutive year. Gambia is accepted as unsafe for LGBTQ+ people by the Home Office in its February 2023 CPIN. Ghana is accepted by the Home Office as unsafe for LGBTQ+ people in its May 2022 CPIN. In Jamaica, a number of cases have been decided that establish it as unsafe for people from the LGBTQ+ community, including the major case of Brown v the Home Secretary, a 2015 decision of the Supreme Court. In Kenya, decided cases—in particular, a well-known case concerning Kenneth Macharia, a gay rugby player, which was decided by the tribunal and not appealed—have established that Kenya is unsafe for members of the LGBTQ+ community. There was a more recent decision to the same effect by the Upper Tribunal in February this year.
In Libera, same-sex sexual activity is criminalised under Liberia’s penal code. In October 2020, the Home Office country background note accepted that there was state persecution of LGBTQ+ people in Malawi. The Justice Minister in Mauritius has stated that he will pursue the adoption of legislation to criminalise same-sex conduct. In Nigeria, the criminal code states that anybody found guilty of sodomy shall be liable to up to 5 years of penal servitude. There is a lot to be said about Rwanda; I am going to confine my comments for the moment, but I may need to supplement them later. It is sufficient for the present purposes to say that the current Foreign Office travel advice, as of May this year, is that homosexuality is not illegal in Rwanda but remains frowned upon by many. LGBTQ individuals can experience discrimination and abuse, including from local authorities. There are no specific anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT individuals. Critically, a United States State Department country report on Rwanda, published in March this year, said that there is abuse and violence against LGBT people, with no adequate response by the Rwandan Government.
There are a number of independent reports by, for example, Rainbow Migration and Human Rights Watch, about the persecution of LGBTQ+ people in Rwanda. I emphasise that trans women are particularly exposed to abuse and persecution in Rwanda. That is well documented. Finally, in Sierra Leone there is criminalisation of any sexual act.
That deals with the first part of the amendment. It would be contrary to the convention, it would be wholly unjust and a travesty in every moral sense to remove members of the LGBTQ+ community to any of those countries I have mentioned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. The machines to record the votes have basically stopped working. I have spoken to the usual channels, who have agreed that we will defer all Divisions—but not the debates—until Monday.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 37. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for a very clear exposition.
Broadly speaking, I support the amendment, although I shall not be voting for it for the reasons I will now give. I concur also with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about Christian and Muslim persecution in Nigeria, which remains a constituent country in Schedule 1.
The amendment is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Notwithstanding my support, I have some significant questions as to whether it should appear in primary rather than secondary legislation, because it is very detailed and because there are other groups that are suffering persecution which could also be included. That does not take away the very real concerns articulated by many noble Lords about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people who may face persecution when returned to some of these countries.
I have a very significant issue. I genuinely hope that when those who tabled the amendment respond to the Minister they will disabuse me of any misapprehension about it, particularly with regard to subsection (1)(c). It seems to me that it is constitutionally unprecedented to put in primary legislation an amendment which is largely dependent on the time-limited, opaque legal process of a foreign legal entity—in this case, Section 7 of the Treaty on European Union. We are relying on the procedures of the European Union and how it handles ongoing and potentially continuous infraction procedures under that part of the treaty as a determinant of whether we include it in the Bill. That is completely unprecedented.
I can understand the points that noble Lords have made about Poland and Hungary, but those legal processes have not yet run their course and are still ongoing. That is a matter for the European Union rather than the United Kingdom.
How wide and prescriptive would this amendment be? Would infraction procedures begin against Latvia, Bulgaria, Malta and Romania? This can be incorporated over a period in secondary legislation in a statutory instrument, rather than on the face of the Bill. I say very gently to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that he was not as clear and emphatic in his explanation and rationale for that part of his amendment as he was in the earlier part, that it is of course axiomatic that a number of people, because of their sexuality or gender preferences, would face persecution.
For that reason, I feel uncomfortable about supporting the amendment and will support the Government if they oppose it. I would be extremely grateful if those who tabled the amendment would address the issues that I have.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, we cannot countenance a situation in which people who sought asylum here because of a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin are then removed to a third country where they may face a similar, or even greater, level of risk. For that reason, I join others in supporting Amendment 37.
It was my privilege earlier this year to be invited to attend a reception on the Parliamentary Estate, where I met a group of LGBTQI+ women who had sought and gained asylum in this country. Their stories were harrowing. By contrast, their efforts to rebuild their lives here in Britain were inspirational.
It seems to me beyond any doubt that the threshold of safety must be different and, indeed, higher for people like these women—people who are persecuted on the basis of their sexuality or their gender identity. Putting it bluntly, if His Majesty’s Government’s travel advice to British tourists is that they should not be open about their sexuality when visiting certain countries, two things surely follow. First, those same countries are not places to which we should remove LGBTQI+ people; secondly, the Bill must provide explicit protection to that end. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment achieves that aim, and unless the Minister can offer equally concrete protections, I hope that your Lordships’ House will support it at such time as the voting machines are resurrected from the dead.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments in this group, particularly the amendment to which I have added my name and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so eloquently expounded, as did the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We have of course addressed, and will continue to address, vulnerable people in all the categories affected by the Bill. We have done so consistently—for example, for pregnant women and vulnerable children, as we have done today, and for others. When it comes to protecting the vulnerable, that is arguably how a country is judged, so we make no omission when dealing with Schedule 1.
As was said earlier—I will be brief—there are 63 countries that currently criminalise people merely because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In a country such as Uganda, for example, for you to know that somebody is in a SOGI minority, as the UN refers to it, and not to report it to the authorities is to face two years in prison. If in Uganda you rent a home to a homosexual person, you can face up to 20 years in prison. Some 63 countries criminalise; now seven have the death penalty. The reality of state discrimination, as has been said, is death, mutilation, persecution, blackmail and coercive rape. I remember David Kato, the Ugandan activist murdered some nine or 10 years ago; his murderer has still not been brought to justice. Lives are being denied, blighted and criminalised.
We raise this issue because within Schedule 1 the majority of those countries that criminalise and offer the death penalty are on the list and there are currently no protections. We have sought reassurances throughout—at Second Reading, in Committee and now—but reassurances there have come none.
Let me finish with the words of a young Ugandan, Arthur Kayima, who said this, yesterday, here in Parliament:
“Without a Mother I grew up as a very vulnerable child and as if that was not enough, as a child, signs of not being straight were just too visible”.
Growing up in a country like Uganda, he said, being considered gay is to be considered evil—
“a curse, an abomination and a dangerously unforgiven sin”.
He continued that the President of Uganda, Museveni,
“signed into law the world’s harshest anti-LGBT+ law, which allows the death penalty for homosexual acts, long serving in prison for promoting homosexuality or renting a room to a gay couple (20 years in prison)”.
Without any reassurances, Uganda is on the list in Schedule 1.
That is the reality of being in a country with homophobic laws: those words, spoken by a man seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. No LGBT person should be sent to such a country, and that is one of the many reasons why I support Amendment 37, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly remind the House why this set of amendments is extremely important. I particularly support Amendment 37.
The thing to remember—I remind us all—is that the Bill automatically detains everybody who arrives irregularly. All those who arrive irregularly and are detained will then, at some point, as far as the Government are concerned—although this is unclear—be deported. There will be thousands upon thousands of people detained and then deported.
The amendments are extremely important, therefore, because if we are saying that thousands upon thousands of people are to be automatically detained and then deported, is there not a responsibility to ensure that the places where those people are to be deported to are safe? This puts an increased burden upon us to ensure that that is the case. As it stands, the Government will reply by saying that Clause 5(5) refers to “exceptional circumstances”, and that therefore there is no need for the worries and concerns expressed by a number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, because if anybody faced deportation to a country which was not safe, the exceptional circumstances would protect them.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, these amendments go to the issue of whether it is safe to remove a person to a country listed in Schedule 1. It remains the Government’s view that these amendments are not necessary. I will briefly set out why that is the case.
It is not the case that anyone who meets the conditions in Clause 2 can be sent to any of the countries listed in Schedule 1 without further ado. In the case of a national of a non-Section 80AA country, were they to make a protection claim or human rights claim they could not be returned to their home country. In speaking to his amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, itemised a number of the countries with which he has particular concern. For the sake of brevity, I will answer by reference to a single example, but that example covers the list: a Gambian LGBT person fearing persecution if they were returned to Gambia would not be so returned if they make an asylum claim.
The point was taken up by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, spoke with power and made specific reference to an individual example, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, returned to the point when summing up. However, I reiterate that an LGBT person fearing persecution if they were returned to their own country would not be so returned if they make an asylum claim.
In the case of a national of a Section 80AA country, the fact that they have raised a protection or human rights claim against their country of nationality would not be a bar to their removal to their home country, unless the Secretary of State considers that there are exceptional circumstances why they cannot be removed there. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in summing up from the Opposition Benches, drew our attention to the concern that that might lay open this serious matter to the idiosyncrasies of a particular Home Secretary, but I urge your Lordships to consider that the countries with which we are dealing here are EU and EEA countries, plus Switzerland and Albania, all of which, we maintain, are clearly safe. That said, if it was considered that there were exceptional circumstances, they would not be removed there and would instead be removed—
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I have listened intently to the argument that was presented, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and I just make a very simple proposition. Would it not be much safer to adopt Amendment 37, rather than leaving it to individuals as to whether they make an asylum claim and in what circumstances? That is why I ask the Minister to think again about this.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Government Front Bench will reflect, as your Lordships would expect, on submissions made on the Floor of the House at this stage. With respect to the noble Lord, I will defer my consideration of that point until later in my submission and will take matters in a different order. I will return to that point.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I accept the principle of non-refoulement to a country—a Ugandan going back to Uganda—but there is the wider issue of a gay Ugandan being sent to a country such as Gambia or Kenya. I seek reassurances on that.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hope to be able to provide that reassurance. Again, with reference to the important point that the noble Lord takes up, which is fully appreciated by the Government Front Bench, I will refer to that in the course of my submission to your Lordships.
I repeat: if it was considered that there were exceptional circumstances, a person would not be removed to his home country. Coming as quickly as I may to the point just raised in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, the country to which they return would be a country considered to be a safe one. A person would not be removed to their home country but at the same time would not be removed to a country where they would be exposed to the same level of risk as they would by dint of their sexual orientation.
If we were to seek to remove a third country’s national to any of the countries listed under Schedule 1 and that country were prepared to admit them, those persons would have the opportunity to make a serious harm suspensive claim. Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim. Such an individual would not be removed to that country if their claim was accepted by the Home Office or upheld by the Upper Tribunal on appeal. So I submit respectfully to the House that the Bill already provides for individual assessments—the very individuality for which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, called in his powerful submission on these important matters. The Bill already provides for that degree of consideration of individual facts and circumstances for which the noble Lord, among others, has called. As such, I consider that Amendment 20, advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, is unnecessary.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister might be able to help me. Where does the Bill outline the process for that individual review of the individual circumstances?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in the making of the serious harm suspensive claim, those individual circumstances would be outlined.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the claim can be made only after the notice is provided, but the Minister just told us that there would be an individual process before the notice was provided. Is that correct?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I did. The point I am making is that the serious harm suspensive claim in connection with Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim. Hence there is consideration of individual facts and circumstances.
On Amendments 19, 21, 24 to 28 and 37, I make an observation, namely that much in Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 draws on existing immigration law dating back some 20 years. To that extent, the provisions contained therein are not new; they provide necessary clarity as to the country to which a person may be removed.
As regards the consideration of the status of countries as places to which persons can be removed safely and which are on the safe list, that list has been added to over the years. It is instructive that some of the countries added to the safe list in terms of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 were added during the period when the party opposite was in power: in 2003 Albania and Brazil; in 2005 India, Ghana for men and Nigeria for men; in 2007 Gambia for men, Kenya for men, Malawi for men, Mali for men, Mauritius, Montenegro and Sierra Leone for men—I merely exemplify. I reiterate that these are not novel provisions. They provide the necessary clarity as to the country to which a person may be removed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, raised a matter concerning the nature of the—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance. I refer him to the equality impact assessment we have published, which in short order answers his question. Again, I am grateful to him for helping me out in my difficulty there.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
After today’s debate, before we reach group 17 and my Amendment 163, which is on safe routes but which also incorporates this idea of using protected characteristics as contained in the Equality Act 2010, perhaps the Minister can give some further consideration as to whether that might be a useful criterion to use as and when the Government decide on the formula that we use for safe routes.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in the face of that characteristically thoughtful and constructive suggestion, I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we will consider that between now and the point he refers to in relation to his forthcoming amendment.
On Amendment 37, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I know that he has had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with the Attorney-General, my learned friend in the other place. Following that discussion, I will make one further point that I hope will reassure the noble and learned Lord. If the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them living in a specified third country without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim as outlined in Clause 39, and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the case of HJ (Iran) would be upheld.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am grateful for what the Minister just said in relation to the ability of an openly gay, lesbian, transgender or bisexual person to live in a particular country. If, acting in that open way, they had a well-founded fear of persecution, as I understand it the Minister is saying that that would satisfy serious and irreversible harm. That is not apparent in the Bill, and to make that clear would itself require an amendment to Clause 38, which we will come to in due course.
But I am left, I am sorry to say, somewhat perplexed by the Minister’s analysis of the application of Article 7 proceedings against a particular country. In asking this question of the Minister, I can deal with the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. There are two different situations under the Bill under which the issue of removal arises. The first, which is found at Clause 5(4), is where the person
“is a national of a country listed in section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”
That renders inadmissible certain asylum and human rights claims because they are deemed to be safe states.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Could I just ask the noble and learned Lord to ask his question, please?
Lord Etherton (CB)
My first question is: does the Minister not agree that that is quite different from the case that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, raised, where a person is not from a country listed in Section 80AA(1) but from another country? There is a separate provision for that in relation to removal to a Schedule 1 country. Does the Minster not agree that, although Clause 5(5) deals with the Section 80AA point, there is no equivalent to that exception in relation to a situation where somebody comes from a non-EU country that is a non-safe place and the consideration is now to move that person to a Schedule 1 country? What my amendment is dealing with is not the Section 80AA situation but the situation categorised by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, where a person from a non-safe European state comes here and is threatened to be removed to a Schedule 1 country. All I said—and I am asking the Minister to acknowledge this—is that there should be a similar provision for that situation, for the exclusion of those countries that are facing proceedings under Article 7. That is it.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, of course, for his intervention. It seems to me that the point he raises is one that calls for a degree of interpretative scrutiny that I do not think I am in a position to give at this stage from the Dispatch Box. I wonder if he would be content were I to undertake to write to him on the point that he raises.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am grateful for the Minister writing, but at the moment it seems to me that the Minister has not really addressed my point about the need for such a provision and the exclusion of such countries. On that basis, I would be minded to press the amendment.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I suspect that nothing I could say from the Dispatch Box will alter the fixed purpose of the noble and learned Lord in any event, but I do repeat my undertaking to write to him on the topic.
I was about to address the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, in relation to secret agreements. The Government must retain, I submit, the ultimate discretion over the amount and detail of any information shared with Parliament, but the Government remain committed to principles of transparency and positive engagement. This is considered on a case-by-case basis, finding a balance proportionate to the level of public interest.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
If that is the case, by definition, these agreements will not be treaties, and these agreements will not have gone through the CRaG process, and therefore they will not be binding.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the point. The Government retain discretion to enter into agreements and discretion in relation to the level of detail to be shared.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am so sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but could I ask a straightforward question? What is the view of the Government about countries they are referring to that have not joined, or have not signed up to, the refugee convention?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The straightforward answer to the noble and learned Baroness’s question is that we are content to treat with countries that have not signed up to the refugee convention.
On Amendments 29 to 36, the Secretary of State may add a country to Schedule 1 by regulations only if satisfied that there is in general in that country or part of it no serious risk of persecution and will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the human rights convention. In so doing, the Secretary of State must have regard to information from any appropriate source, including member states and international organisations. The views expressed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on a particular country, among other sources of information, will therefore be considered before a country is added to Schedule 1.
In response to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, our contention is that, when considering adding a country to the list in Schedule 1, we need to consider the position in the round. We do not live in a perfect world, so it is reasonable to assess a country on the basis that they are generally safe and to consider the possibility of adding to the list only a part of a country.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, raised the matter of Rwanda. In relation to protections for LGBTQ+ persons in that country, the constitution of Rwanda includes a broad prohibition on discrimination. Rwanda does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law, policy or practice.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, where does the Minister get the evidence to say that, in practice, as opposed to what is written in the constitution, there is no persecution? There are numerous independent reports and newspaper reports, as well as the Foreign Office’s own advice, to indicate that there is a real risk of persecution in Rwanda, especially for trans women.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the Rwanda litigation found it to be the case that Rwanda was safe. Beyond that, in relation to the sources of information, the Government operate on the basis of information gathered by their officials, discussed with Ministers and considered in relation to legislation to be put forward.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
On that point, can the Minister tell the House whether we should take any notice of guidance from the Foreign Office on whether countries are safe to visit?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The guidance furnished by the Foreign Office to British citizens for travelling is a separate matter from the guidance upon which the Government are relying in the present case. I can see that that clearly has not impressed the noble Baroness, but none the less it is the position.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Why would the Minister tell me, and others who identify as LGBT, that it is not safe to go to a country because we would be in fear of our safety, yet deport to that country an LGBT national from another country having decided that they would be safe and not in fear of persecution? What is the difference?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The Government are acting on the basis of information in the context of these provisions.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can the Minister give clarification? The context is that one is a British citizen and the others are not British citizens, and therefore their standards are different. That must be the interpretation: that the Government have a benchmark for British citizens but a completely different benchmark for those who are not British citizens. Can the Minister please explain this much lower benchmark?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
In setting the benchmark for countries that are safe for persons to be sent to, the Government are looking at it from the point of view of the objectives of the Bill. We are not looking at it from the point of view of British citizens travelling abroad.
The Bill already includes adequate safeguards to protect those in fear of persecution based on their sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected characteristics, or those who are fearful of onward refoulement. I say again that these amendments are unnecessary, and therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to withdraw Amendment 19. Although we will not be voting tonight, for reasons explained, I urge the noble and learned Lord and other noble Lords—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister give clarification on the point I raised that he has not replied to—the interaction not with Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which will be amended by this Bill, but with the definitions of a safe third state under Section 80B of that Act? How will they interact? The asylum claims by persons with a connection to a safe state has the definition, as I referred to, of a safe third state under the 2002 Act. That is not being amended by this Bill. The definition of a safe third state in the 2002 Act, which will still be on the statute book, unamended by this Bill, states that the safety is defined if they will receive protection in accordance with the refugee convention. How will they interact? We have the 2002 Act still on the statute book, where a state that is not a signatory to the refugee convention is defined as a non-safe state, but, as the Minister has told us, under this Bill the same is not being applied.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, as I stated at the outset, the position is that the provisions for the ability of people to bring applications for serious harm suspensive claims allow for scrutiny of the safety of any location to which a person would be sent.
I was on the point of saying that, although we will not be voting this evening, I none the less urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and other noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken on this group. In relation to Amendment 19, it is not proposed to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the removal provisions in Clause 5 only apply to those who make protection or human rights claims after the Bill comes into force.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Clause 5 only applies to protection or human rights claims made on or after the date the Bill comes into force.
Lord Etherton
“Restrictions on removal destinations: LGBT persons(1) Where the Secretary of State is required by section 2(1) to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom—(a) trans men and women must not be removed to Brazil;(b) LGBT persons must not be removed to Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda or Sierra Leone;(c) no person may be removed to a territory or country listed in Schedule 1 (Countries or territories to which a person may be removed) if the exceptional circumstances specified in section 5(5)(b) apply to that territory or country.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1) to—(a) add or remove a country or territory, or part of a country or territory;(b) reflect changes made to Schedule 1 by regulations made under section 6.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent LGBT people being moved to countries where they have a well-founded fear of persecution; or to a country which is subject to proceedings under Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, as is currently the case with Hungary and Poland, and as is recognised as inappropriate by the existing Clause 5(5).
Lord Etherton (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for what he said. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the Minister has fully grasped the difference between the two types of people I have mentioned—those who come from a safe place and those who do not come from one of these Section 80AA places and who could be removed to somewhere within Schedule 1. He has not explained why it is acceptable for women—one group—to be identified and excluded in relation to countries in Schedule 1 but for not another diverse group which faces persecution. So far as the evidence is concerned, I think he challenged only Rwanda on that. I have already explained that in the light of all the independent evidence I do not accept that Rwanda is not a hostile place for LGBTQ+ people, particularly for those who are trans. On the basis of that, I shall seek to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The Question will be decided by a deferred Division on Monday.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 28th June 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Jun 2023)
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment supplements the reference to the Secretary of State in clause 7(8) with a reference to an immigration officer.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 10, line 42 and page 11, line 1 supplement the references to the Secretary of State in clause 7(9) with references to an immigration officer.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 10, line 41.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 10, line 41.
Lord Hendy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a person (who may be a child) subject to removal to be accompanied by an escort trained and employed for this task and with the power of arrest.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 42 I will speak also to Amendments 45, 48 and 85 in the unavoidable absence of my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Woodley. I have added my name to those amendments.
Clause 7(12) imposes a statutory duty on a captain of a ship or an aircraft, a train manager or a vehicle driver that, on the instructions of an immigration officer, they must prevent a particular person disembarking or they must detain a particular person. These duties go significantly beyond the existing duties on captains of aircrafts and ships in the Immigration Act 1971. If one of those postholders fails to fulfil that statutory duty, Clause 9(2) of this Bill will make it a criminal offence. This new statutory duty and the threat of criminal prosecution are likely to create major problems for the staff involved.
I appreciate that we have been discussing matters of fundamental human rights until now. These are more prosaic issues, but nevertheless significant for those affected. These amendments are designed to alleviate the difficulties caused for the staff to whom the clause is directed. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain precisely how, in the absence of such amendments, these problems will be overcome. I will give the House five examples of issues that might arise and need addressing.
First, all these jobs are safety-critical, and the individuals performing these functions have statutory safety responsibilities. What if those health and safety duties required all the passengers on a ship, train or bus to be disembarked? For example, if a train breaks down, the duty of the train manager is to make the train as safe as possible, disembark the passengers and take them to a place of safety.
The second issue is the problem of identifying the passenger or passengers who are to be prevented from disembarking or to be detained. The captains of scheduled air flights and cruise ships will have lists of crews, passengers and so on, but how is the manager of a crowded train or ferry to find the passenger concerned? The inevitable result is that the entire complement of passengers on the train or bus will have to be detained.
Thirdly, whether the individual is identified or not, the only way of detaining him or her, or preventing them getting off the train, is to keep the doors closed. How will the manager explain to the passengers on a train arriving into King’s Cross from Glasgow that the doors must remain closed until there are security staff or immigration officers to vet the passengers coming off and detain the individual they have identified? What of the consequences to the train operating companies? Are they to be reimbursed for the compensation payable to passengers or Network Rail in the event of consequential delays?
Fourthly, assuming the passenger has been identified by the train manager or coach driver, how will they physically detain them in the absence of any training, skills or desire to engage in physical violence? How and by whom will they be compensated should they be injured?
Fifthly—this is my final example—what will happen if the French driver of a Eurostar arriving into St Pancras, or the Irish driver of a train from Belfast to Dublin, does not keep the doors shut and prevent an individual disembarking? Is it proposed that there will be extradition proceedings if the foreign train manager goes back to their own country? Your Lordships will look in vain for the answers to these very practical questions in the impact assessment.
Paragraph 67 and Annexe A of the assessment deal with extra costs of escorts and other hired staff, but there is not a word about extra payment for the poor souls identified in Clause 7. Paragraph 84 recognises that
“there may be an increase in the level of disruption observed in detention prior to removal”,
but there is not a word about how the Clause 7 staff are to cope with such disruption. Paragraphs 117, 132 and 145 report that the Bill imposes no costs on business, but there is not a word about the costs of, among other things, delays to aircraft, ships, trains and buses as a consequence of preventing the disembarkation of passengers.
No doubt the Minister would wish these amendments not to be pursued, but if so, I would be grateful for his full explanation of how these very pragmatic issues are to be addressed in the absence of these amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, has clearly articulated a whole series of practical difficulties with the duties to be imposed on transport workers. From what the noble Lord said, it appears that the Government have quite clearly not thought through the consequences of the duties they intend to place on, for example, train managers. I will listen carefully to any argument the Minister might have that the duties imposed by the Bill go beyond existing duties but, clearly, subjecting these workers to being potentially convicted of a criminal offence for failing to act in accordance with the Bill, while not providing them with any advice, let alone training or equipment, in order to carry out their duties requires some explanation.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, particularly with respect to whether what is included in the Bill is an extension of existing powers, or simply a reiteration of what was in legislation that preceded the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, did us a great favour in bringing forward a whole series of practical questions which the Minister started to answer in Committee. They are quite serious questions about the practicalities and, as the Minister knows, we have been concerned about not only some of our principled objections but also the workability of some of the clauses and powers contained in the Bill. It is worth reiterating, so it is on the record, what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said: the Government require transport workers—whether it be a lorry driver, a train operator, a train guard or a bus conductor—to act in an almost pseudo-police officer role to detain or search people.
If I were in that situation, I would be genuinely concerned about the implications. There are legitimate questions about the powers of detention, how long people would be detained, the use of force, and so on.
Can the Minister clarify one further point? His previous amendments added the words “immigration officer” to make the legislation consistent with later parts of the clause which refer to an
“immigration officer or the Secretary of State”.
Do the Government envisage any difference? Is that wording to cover any eventuality rather than any significant principled thing that the immigration officer could do that the Secretary of State could not, or vice versa? It would be interesting to know, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I am grateful to the Bill team for confirming this, but it would be useful to have it said in the Chamber that “immigration officer” is an immigration officer of any rank at all. There does not have to be any seniority attached to the post when an immigration officer is given powers in these provisions and elsewhere in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which seeks to protect transport providers. I understand the concern that this is causing.
To answer the points of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, Clauses 7 and 9 simply reflect the current position, corresponding to the long-standing requirement set out in Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. As now, risk assessments must be made before directions are given to a carrier, and escorts will be provided where this is assessed to be necessary.
All the practical issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, apply equally under existing powers, and there are established protocols for dealing with them. We are not putting any additional burdens on the transport sector; in fact, we are providing for the costs of complying with directions under the Bill, but they will be paid for by the Secretary of State and will not be at the carrier’s expense. The amendment would therefore put the powers surrounding the giving of removal directions at odds with existing provisions and would effectively turn a requirement to remove people into a request, which would then impact on the number of illegal immigrants being removed.
Government Amendments 46 and 47 are prompted by a question posed in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked how transport workers could deal with a non-compliant person. Again, the answer lies in the Immigration Act 1971. It is already an offence under Section 24(1)(f) of that Act for a person subject to removal to disembark, and these amendments simply apply that offence to removals under the Bill. This then engages Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which enables a person to use reasonable force to prevent a crime—a provision that I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in particular, will be very familiar with.
Finally, returning to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, Amendment 85 seeks to amend the definition of “vehicle” to limit the power in Schedule 2 to search vehicles to only those hired by the Secretary of State to remove persons pursuant to Clauses 2 and 3. We would not want to limit the power to search vehicles in this way; doing so would prevent immigration officers being able to search small boats, for example.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sure the Minister answered this in Committee, but can he just confirm that vehicles are lorries, van and cars? Does “a vehicle” mean all types of vehicle?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I seem to remember —I am sure the Bill team will correct me if I am wrong—that it does not include private cars and camper-vans. I hope that clarifies the point; if am wrong, I will be sent a message, I am sure.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate, which I will not prolong. I will indeed withdraw the amendment, but there is one point which I would wish to pursue.
The Minister says that this is really a reiteration of powers which already exist under the Immigration Act 1971. I am not an immigration lawyer and am not on familiar territory but, as I understand it, the 1971 Act and the schedule to which he referred impose duties on the captains of ships and aircraft to detain or to prevent disembarkation; it does not impose those duties on the managers of trains or the drivers of buses and lorries. That is what is new and what takes us beyond what was formerly there. If I am wrong about that, no doubt the Minister will write to tell me that I am ignorant of immigration law, which I may well be.
However, if it is right that the duties go beyond, in being extended to train managers and bus and lorry drivers, that is quite a serious extension. One thing is clear: train managers, bus drivers and lorry drivers will not be skilled or qualified in detaining people who are accused of illegal behaviour. They will not have the skill set to deal with that situation. What we have not heard from the Minister is how those people are going to deal with that and what will happen if it conflicts with some statutory duty that they have. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 12, line 17.
“(1A) In section 24(1) (illegal entry and similar offences), after paragraph (f) insert—“(fa) if the person disembarks in the United Kingdom from a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle after being placed on board under section 7(11) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 with a view to the person’s removal from the United Kingdom;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for section 24(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 to be amended so that it is an offence for a person to disembark in the United Kingdom from a ship, aircraft, train or vehicle if they have been placed on board with a view to their removal under the Bill.
Lord German
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord German’s amendment to page 15, line 37.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, there are two sets of amendments in this group. I am speaking to Amendments 49, 53, 56 and 61, which all concern standards in places of detention. The other amendments have been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. From these Benches, we support all the amendments in her name and would be pleased to have been able to add our name to them.
We discussed this matter of standards very briefly in Committee, but the rules on where people can be held for detention are being altered by the Bill. Rather than following the Immigration Act 1971, which lays out clearly where people could be detained, this says that people can be detained anywhere the Minister feels appropriate. I have been thinking about a number of questions which arise from that, but clearly the issue that I am particularly concerned about is the boundary-line between where people are going to be detained—because, of course, that is part of the Bill—and where they might be placed when that detention ends and what offering they might get.
I regret to say that today we heard about the government costs for the barge in Portland: a contract has been let, without tendering, for £1.6 billion for the first two years of that contract. I have in front of me a copy of the floor-plan of that barge, and it is quite clear that the only way that the numbers the Government say will be accommodated will be achieved is by putting in bunk beds in each of the single bedrooms on the “Bibby Stockholm”. We are also led to understand, apart from the huge cost involved, that there will be curfews and that people will only be allowed on to the dockside in a compound—that is the only space they will occupy. To me, that seems to be detention. The only thing that I need to understand is whether the standards of a place of detention are going to be the same as where people are accommodated when they are not in detention. It seems that what the Government are proposing in this £1.6 billion contract is very clearly a place of security and secure boundaries. If there is a curfew when people are not allowed to leave, clearly that means that there are very strict rules that people will have to follow.
Consequently, if the Minister would ensure that the standards of the Detention Centre Rules, which have been in place since 2001, and the Short-term Holding Facility Rules, which were put in place in 2018, are going to be followed, we can expect to have at least some boundary-lines about what sort of accommodation it will be like. However, I fear that the worst aspect is that we are going to see a dehumanisation of people by being put into places which will not suit the current legislation and certainly will not suit what most people would think of as somewhere decent for people to be detained or to live.
I ask these questions to seek some clarity. Are there any rules at all which the Government are going to follow in relation to the detention of the people they now propose to detain, with everybody being put in detention when they arrive?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 51, 57, 59 and 63 in my name, which retain existing time limits for the detention of children, both unaccompanied and those with families.
Under a Conservative-led Government over a decade ago, Parliament rectified what David Cameron called the scandal of routinely detaining innocent children, so it is regrettable that we are conducting this debate again. The evidence is unequivocal, the debate long since settled: detention does immense and long-lasting harm to children.
I made my points at Second Reading and in Committee, so I shall not repeat the arguments other than to remind my noble friend the Minister of warnings of leading medical organisations in a letter to the Home Secretary outlining the serious harm and risks that refugee children will face if the detention powers in the Bill become law.
There is no policy rationale for why the Government should detain vulnerable young people. The argument is that not detaining children would lead to adults pretending to be children or smugglers exploiting loopholes. But preventing presumed future actions of an unknown number of adults is not a justification.
My noble friend the Minister has recognised the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, and for that I thank him. He told us in Committee that, for the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained. Yet any such exceptionality of a lone child’s detention is nowhere in the Bill. Indeed, the proposed legislation expressly does away with the existing statutory provisions that limit an unaccompanied child’s detention.
In fact, the new powers to detain them are unrestricted. Under the Bill, unaccompanied children may be detained under the new powers only in circumstances prescribed in regulations. We do not know what will be in these regulations or when we will see them. While I thank my noble friend the Minister for the positive step in making the unaccompanied children regulations subject to the affirmative procedure, there is still no knowing what circumstances will be specified in them.
The law governing something as extreme as the power of the state to detain an individual without charge or trial must be much more firmly established. In Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that
“the Bill will also allow the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying time limits to be placed on the detention of unaccompanied children for the purpose of removal, if required”.—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1491.]
I remind noble Lords that the Bill does away with precise time limits, as established by a Conservative Government, that keep unaccompanied children’s detention to no more than 24 hours and only in short-term holding facilities. The Bill will replace existing limits with a power, if required, to make regulations with any as yet unknown time limits on detention and of unaccompanied children only. To my mind, this is wholly insufficient.
I turn from the Government’s possible future time limits in regulations for unaccompanied children to the promised government timescale for child detention. This, we are led to believe, is a timescale for detention of all children—those who are unaccompanied and alone as well as those with their families. The timescale was to be set out during the passage of the Bill through this House, but as yet we do not have it. However, following a very positive engagement with the Immigration Minister earlier today, I am hopeful that we will have clarity and that my amendments will receive consideration on return to the Commons. For that reason, I am minded to test the opinion of the House on Monday.
In October 2020, a Kurdish-Iranian family from Sardasht near the Iraqi border died after the boat they were travelling in capsized in the channel. They were Rasoul Iran-Nejad, 35, Shiva Mohammad Panahi, 35, Anita, nine, Armin, six, and Artin, 15 months, whose tiny body washed up on the coast of Norway months later. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in continuing to mourn the loss of these lives. If these three children, Anita, Armin and Artin, had survived, under the Bill they would be detained indefinitely upon arrival in the UK. Surely that cannot be right. I urge the Government to think again about undoing the progress made when we ended the cruel practice of detaining babies, toddlers and children.
We can and must do better by these vulnerable young people whom the world has already put through so much. Trafficked and refugee children need recovery and protection in line with their rights under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, trafficking conventions and the refugee convention. Let us not take away the existing time limits for the detention of migrant children as laid out by a previous Conservative Government. The ending of lengthy child detention was a humanitarian response to what had been an unacceptable practice with grave impacts. This is a proud legacy that we must protect.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.
First, on the principle of third time lucky, for the third time today I ask where the child rights impact assessment is. By my reckoning, nearly half the groupings on Report concern children, and yet we have not been given the child rights impact assessment that we need to assess these amendments.
To return to these amendments, it is worth recalling what the Conservative Immigration Minister, Damian Green, said in his Written Statement in December 2010, following the announcement of the policy to limit child detention:
“This Government believe that children should not be detained in our immigration system … This new system will strengthen families’ trust and confidence in the immigration system, maintain public confidence in the Government’s ability to control the UK’s borders and ensure that families with children are treated humanely and in a way that meets our international obligations and our statutory duties in relation to children’s safety and welfare”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/10; cols. 125-26WS.]
He had previously explained that:
“We want to replace the current system with something that ensures that families with no right to be in this country return in a more dignified manner”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/10; col. 211WH.]
We have still not heard a plausible justification for why the Government are going back on their own policy. The deterrence argument is all the more unconvincing in the light of the impact assessment.
In Committee, I asked what steps would be taken to ensure that children are detained for as short a period as possible, as we have been assured of that. There was no reply. I asked about the estimate of the numbers of children in detention. There was no reply, and nothing, as far as I could see, in the impact assessment.
Yesterday, I received an open letter from 12 young people who arrived in the UK as unaccompanied children and child trafficking victims and who comprise a youth advisory group for ECPAT UK. They expressed their concerns about the Bill’s impact on children who come after them. They asked us to think what it would be like for us as children, or for our own children, and to ensure that children are treated as children first.
In a similar vein, I quoted earlier from a Barnardo’s report which set out ways to give a warm welcome and hope to child asylum seekers. Locking these children up in detention is the very antithesis of this. Please can we vote on Monday to treat children as children and give them a modicum of comfort and hope?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend’s Amendment 51 on maintaining the current protections for unaccompanied children. The commitment that the Government would set out a new timescale under which genuine children may be detained—made by the Immigration Minister in the other place and my noble friend in Committee—was very welcome. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at this point on Report be in a position to provide further detail. If not, the other place will want the opportunity to discuss the matter further with the Government.
I fully acknowledge the verbal reassurances that we have been given by the Government on their ambition to limit the use of powers given by this Bill in relation to the detention of children, which are very welcome. However, accepting my noble friend’s amendment, or bringing forward one of their own in relation to the timescale for the detention of children, will really provide the reassurance that we are looking for.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I too support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Mobarik. As we have heard, the abolition of child detention in 2014 was one of the landmark achievements of our Conservative Government. Along with the Modern Slavery Act, it was a major step forward in the protection of the most vulnerable in our society. The arguments for this amendment have already been made, so I will keep my remarks short, but I want to make a couple of brief points.
The new detention powers have no time limit in the Bill and apply to unaccompanied children and children with their families. Obviously, this is deeply concerning. The Government have rightly stated that we do not want to detain children, and have acknowledged the vulnerability of unaccompanied children in debates on this Bill. However, there are still no protections enshrined in the Bill to guarantee that protections remain in place for minors, and there has been time for the Government to clarify this. This really needs to change before the Bill becomes law.
Having spoken with the Minister in the other place, I am aware that the Government are considering these arguments, so this amendment gives them the opportunity to think again. I commend my noble friend Lady Mobarik’s amendment to the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we on the Labour Benches strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and if she presses them to a vote on Monday, we will be supporting her. Her amendments address the removal of safeguards for children put in place when a Conservative Prime Minister sat in No. 10, and it is clear that potentially thousands of children could be detained, some potentially indefinitely. This would undoubtedly cause long-term damage to their health, well-being and development. We are happy to support those amendments, and we are very interested to hear about the ongoing discussions which noble Baronesses on the other side of the House have mentioned.
Regarding the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, I interpret them as probing amendments into the rules concerning detention and, particularly in the case of barges with the quite astonishing figures he gave today, the cost and where there will be areas for people to walk around and exercise in the vicinity of the barges. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that in response to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord German. We are happy to support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, with these amendments we return to the issue of detention time limits in relation to unaccompanied children and the limiting of places of detention. Amendments 49, 53, 56 and 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, limit the “place of detention” in the Bill to those that are presently authorised for detention. We detain persons for immigration purposes only in places that are listed in the Immigration (Places of Detention) Direction 2021. As I set out in Committee, following Royal Assent we will update the direction in line with the new detention powers.
For more than 50 years we have operated a framework where the Home Secretary sets out the places where persons may be detained for immigration purposes in an administrative direction. The provisions in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 have operated perfectly satisfactorily. I see no case now to change to a position whereby places of detention are to be set out in primary legislation.
I assure noble Lords that the welfare of detained individuals is of paramount importance. Any place of detention must be suitable for the persons we are detaining there, and adequate provision will be made for the safety and welfare of the detained person. The Detention Centre Rules 2001 make provision for the regulation and management of immigration removal centres. These rules set out:
“The purpose of detention centres shall be to provide for the secure but humane accommodation of detained persons in a relaxed regime with as much freedom of movement and association as possible, consistent with maintaining a safe and secure environment”.
The rules also set out the specific requirements which an immigration removal centre must comply with, including, but not limited to, provision for maintenance, general security, healthcare, access and welfare. These rules will continue to apply to detention in immigration removal centres under this Bill. I hope that is a complete answer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. I add that, as their name suggests, these rules apply to detention accommodation, not to non-detained accommodation such as the Bibby Stockholm barge, from which of course people may come and go.
Moreover, we already have robust statutory oversight of immigration detention, including inspection by the Inspectorate of Prisons and independent monitoring boards at every detention facility, and effective safeguards within the detention process which, I would suggest, are efficient.
I turn to the issue of detention time limits. Amendments 51, 57, 59 and 63, tabled by my noble friend Lady Mobarik, seek to retain the existing time limits on the detention of children. It is an unavoidable fact that holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they can successfully be removed from the United Kingdom under the scheme provided for in the Bill, which is designed to operate quickly and fairly. However, our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for any longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal.
The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants back to their home country or to a safe third country will send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including children, cannot be exploited by the people smugglers facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the United Kingdom. The detention powers are an integral part of ensuring the success of this Bill, both as a deterrent and as a means of ensuring that the Home Secretary can comply with the duty to make arrangements for removal.
We must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target children or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes. Children may be put at further risk by adults seeking to pass off unaccompanied children as their own. I know this is not my noble friend’s intention, but that is what these amendments would, perversely, achieve.
Under the Bill, detention is not automatic. The Bill provides powers to detain, and the appropriateness of detention will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Moreover, recognising their vulnerability, I remind my noble friend that the Bill makes particular provision for the detention of unaccompanied children.
It is important to recognise that unaccompanied children would be detained only for the purposes of removal in a minority of cases. They are not subject to the duty to remove, and our expectation is that they will generally be transferred to the care of a local authority until they turn 18. Where they are to be detained, the powers in the Bill may be exercised in respect of unaccompanied children only in circumstances to be prescribed in regulations, as we have already discussed during today’s debate. This would be, for example, for the purposes of an initial examination or, where necessary, in the limited cases where they are to be removed to effect a reunion with the child’s parent or to return them to a safe country of origin. As we have already debated, such regulations are now to be subject to the affirmative procedure, as a result of the government amendments to Clause 10.
The Bill also includes a power to place a time limit on the detention of unaccompanied children where that detention is for the purposes of removal. We will keep the operation of these provisions under review, and should it be necessary to introduce a time limit, we have the means to do so.
Given the safeguards we have already built into the arrangements for the detention of unaccompanied children, the Government remain of the view that these amendments, however well-meaning, are not necessary. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press her Amendment 51. However, if she is minded to test the opinion of the House, I ask noble Lords, if and when the Division occurs, to reject the amendment.
Ahead of that, I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord German, and that he will be content to withdraw his Amendment 49.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, will he please answer my question, which I put for the fourth time, at the risk of being extremely boring and sounding like a broken record: where is the child rights impact assessment? We have nearly finished the first of three days on Report, and we still do not have it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I said yesterday, the child rights impact assessment will be provided in due course.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I have listened very carefully to his answer regarding the potential pull factor if unaccompanied children are not placed in detention. However, children have not been placed in detention since the 2014 provision, and there has been no proportional increase in unaccompanied children claiming asylum. In the impact assessment, which the Government produced on Friday, there is absolutely no indication at all of it being a non-monetary risk. Where is the evidence for that claim being made at the Dispatch Box? Both the legislation since 2014 and the Government’s own impact assessment show that there is no evidence to say that it would be a pull factor.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Clearly, the economic impact assessment is targeted at economic impacts, and the noble Lord invites me to comment on something that is a non-economic impact not being in the impact assessment. I am afraid that is a complete explanation for that. As to the pull factors, I suggest to the noble Lord that it is self-evident that there is that risk of a pull factor, and that is an end to the matter.
Lord Scriven (LD)
If it is a pull factor, why was it not a pull factor in 2014?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am not suggesting that it was not a pull factor in 2014.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have been in this House for only 13 years, and in that time I have had many Ministers coming forward with things I do not agree with, but my noble friend has repeatedly—four times—asked for the assessment. To be told “in due course” at the end of the first day on Report is extremely poor. I suggest that the Minister goes back to his department and gets the assessment here. It does not help his case one iota to say “in due course” to the House at this stage. We should have had this thing weeks ago. I really hope he goes back and understands how cross the House is about this. We have only two days left on Report and then Third Reading. It really is not good enough.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said and I will certainly take it back to the department.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting but short debate. It is interesting that once again we focus on evidence. I often find it strange in this House when people are asked to make judgments about very important matters, particularly affecting young people, and we are not provided with the evidence.
It is not just four times that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has asked. It is probably four on top of four and many times beforehand. She always asks for this in a very decent manner. It is so important that we have that information in order to make judgments about legislation we are being asked to approve or to change. It is not good enough for the Government to say, “Take our word for it”. They should provide that evidence as we would normally expect, at the right time and in the right place. We are now moving rapidly beyond the place where it will be in demand. I dread to think about the devices that one uses in the legislative process that allow us to keep coming back to this matter until such time as we can deal with that evidence.
On the amendments I was talking to, I think I have had a partial answer in that the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are to be followed, so that is something about standards. The bit that I did not have answered was what the difference would be between detention and the places where people will be held or provided with accommodation. In the case of the barge that I told the House about earlier, the only difference was that there would be no curfew and the gate would be closed. That seems the only difference in the standards between the two.
It is a matter that I will keep coming back to, but I am minded to withdraw. Before I do, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, that on these Benches we are certain that if she were to move these to a vote we would support her. The issues she has raised are crucial, especially as we lack the evidence for anybody to say that the case being made has been dealt with appropriately. If I could encourage that, I would be very grateful. In the meantime, I withdraw Amendment 49.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
15:17 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 15 agreed.
15:27 - Division on Amendment 37 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 37 agreed.
15:40 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 51 agreed.
15:52 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 57 agreed.
16:24 - Division on Amendment 64 - Ayes: 226 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 64 agreed.
17:05 - Division on Amendment 66 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 163 - Amendment 66 agreed.
18:02 - Division on Amendment 89 - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 89 agreed.
18:14 - Division on Amendment 95 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 95 agreed.
18:26 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 96 agreed.
19:32 - Division on Amendment 130 - Ayes: 187 / Noes: 139 - Amendment 130 agreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, before the House resumes consideration of the Illegal Migration Bill on Report, we come to two Divisions that the House agreed to defer after the failure of the pass reader Division system on 28 June, beginning with the deferred Division on Amendment 15.
Baroness Mobarik
“(2D) Detention under sub-paragraph (2C) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 51 in my name seeks to retain existing statutory time limits for the detention of unaccompanied children put in place by a Conservative Government. I am grateful for the significant support from these Benches and across the House during last Wednesday’s debate. Although we have received some verbal reassurances throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government have yet to put in place the necessary safeguards in time limits to protect children from the harms of detention under the Bill. Therefore, I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if Amendment 51 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 52 to 54 because of pre-emption.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“(2L) The Secretary of State may not exercise these powers to detain a person under section (2C) where they fall within section 21(3) of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Baroness Mobarik
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain existing limits on the detention of children (72 hours or one week with ministerial approval).
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I have thought long and hard about calling another Division from these Benches, this time on retaining our current statutory time limits on detention of accompanied children or children who are with their families. These children are likely to be much younger. The psychological harms of detention on young children are significant and likely to impact them for the rest of their lives. For that very reason, I ask that we retain the statutory time limits put in place by a Conservative Government. I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is consequential and I beg to move.
Baroness Mobarik
“(2B) Detention under subsection (2A) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Baroness Mobarik
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others to Clause 10 in the name of Baroness Mobarik, would retain existing limits on the detention of unaccompanied children (24 hours).
Member's explanatory statement
This is a technical amendment that is consequent on the amendment in my name to Clause 10, page 17, line 32. This is because section 10(10) as currently in the Bill is consistent with the exclusion of pregnant women from section 60 protection, and should therefore be removed as a consequence of the other amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I move Amendment 64 and will introduce Amendment 65. One is consequential to the other so I will take them together. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Gohir, for their invaluable support, and Women for Refugee Women for all its work on the amendments.
The amendments do no more than restore the status quo ante by limiting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation. This aim is supported by the JCHR, Children’s Commissioner and many organisations.
The existing time limit represented a compromise put forward by the then Home Secretary Theresa May in response to your Lordships’ House voting time and again for the absolute exclusion of pregnant women from detention, as recommended in the government-commissioned review by Stephen Shaw, former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. Shaw based his recommendation on what he considered to be the incontrovertible evidence of detention’s deleterious effects on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children. His verdict was referenced in a recent letter to the Times from, among others, the CEO of the Royal College of Midwives and the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, calling on us to oppose the removal of the detention limits.
I still await an answer to the question I posed in Committee, citing an unanswered letter from the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody to the Home Secretary. Has the Home Office
“carried out a full assessment of the risks linked to the indefinite detention of pregnant women”?—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1494.]
Given that the limits on detention for pregnant women were introduced only seven years ago, and it has been admitted that very few have come over in small boats, there must surely be strong grounds for this change in policy. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, exposed so skilfully in Committee, we have been given the flimsiest of justifications, lacking any evidential base. For example, in Committee the Minister declared that he was
“happy to repeat … that we must not create incentives for people-smuggling gangs to target pregnant women or provide opportunities for people to exploit any loopholes”.—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1504.]
Could the Minister explain what the Government have in mind here? Are they suggesting that women might deliberately get pregnant to avoid unlimited detention or that people smugglers will be scouring refugee camps for pregnant women?
To be fair to the Minister, he tried to persuade us that pregnant women would be treated well on a case-by-case basis. But let us remember what Theresa May said in 2016:
“This new safeguard will ensure that detention for pregnant women will be used as a last resort and for very short periods”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/4/16; col. 679WS.]
For a safeguard to be effective, it needs the backing of law. Discretionary case-by-case consideration is simply not enough to ensure the protection of women in very vulnerable circumstances. We can see this from what was happening before the time limit was introduced. Previous Home Office guidance stated:
“Pregnant women should not normally be detained”.
However, under this guidance, nearly 100 pregnant women were detained in 2014, with one-third held for over a month and four held for between three and six months. The gulf between policy and practice has been closed only with the implementation of the statutory time limit.
The Minister also insisted that pregnant women will be protected through categorisation as adults at risk level 3. Yet during the passage of the 2016 Act, the Government ultimately recognised that this approach provided insufficient safeguards. Why are they now arguing the opposite? The Minister further tried to reassure us by pointing out that
“it will be open to pregnant women to apply to the First-tier Tribunal for immigration bail after 28 days”
or that
“a writ of habeas corpus”—
which, as pointed out in Committee, is very limited in its application—could
“be made at any point”.—[Official Report, 7/6/23; col. 1505.]
But these are women who are likely to be very stressed and may already be traumatised by what they have been through, with damaging effects on their unborn baby. Twenty-eight days in detention is a long time, particularly in the context of a pregnancy.
How realistic is it to expect them to have to engage with the legal system for protection that they receive automatically now? If they did so, why would the Government want to spend time and money on what should be unnecessary legal challenges? This is all in the context of what the JCHR has described as a severe restriction on judicial supervision.
When we debated a similar amendment in Committee, not only did all those who spoke give it unequivocal support but I was aware of a number of noble Lords sitting on the Government Benches and the Cross Benches who were supporting the amendment in silent solidarity. That was quite something, given that it was well past midnight. While I feel passionately about the amendment, it is a very small cog in the wider wheel of the Bill. It is one which the Government could easily concede without undermining the Bill’s objectives, as much as I disagree with them. I very much hope that the Minister will remember what is at stake for pregnant women and their unborn children and will do the right thing today. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expertly outlined why the amendment is needed.
I will not repeat all the points made, but this is an issue of dignity for a highly vulnerable group. I will highlight one or two things that have been said. There is no evidence to suggest that the current 72-hour time limit on their detentions resulted in lots of pregnant women making the crossing. The Government have previously conceded that the adults at risk policy would not adequately safeguard pregnant women, and, in response, the 72-hour limit was brought in. We have research from prior to the introduction of this time limit that highlighted the inadequate healthcare for detained pregnant women. It is hard to believe that any healthcare arrangements would therefore relieve the stress of detention and the damaging impact on both a pregnant woman and her unborn baby.
We have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the number of medical organisations and people who are opposed to removing the 72-hour limit. I join with them by strongly supporting this amendment, and I urge noble Lords to do likewise.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name, because this Government are compromising the safety of pregnant migrant women and their babies.
To date, the Minister has not provided evidence that the numbers will increase if women are not detained. I wrote to the Minister and last week he acknowledged that, since January, no pregnant migrant women have arrived in this country illegally. Evidence has also not been provided that housing a few handfuls of migrant women, who have probably arrived over several years, will provide a danger to our society. For those reasons, I urge the House to support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I support the cross-party amendments in this group. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his engagement, which I have truly appreciated, but I regret to say that I have yet to hear an argument as to why this amendment should not be accepted.
This is a very narrow and focused amendment that simply maintains the current protection on the detention of pregnant women. There is a clear medical case, which is why it is supported by the royal colleges, medical professionals and over 140 groups representing women. It will not create loopholes. It will not incentivise pregnant women to make a dangerous crossing across the channel. It does not exempt women from the rest of the provisions of the Bill, such as removal. It will not create a pull factor, and there is really no way it can be exploited by the criminal gangs who arrange crossings. There cannot be false claims of pregnancy, as the time limit starts only once the Home Office is satisfied that a woman is pregnant.
Some have said that pregnant women are unlikely to be removed, given fitness to fly, but that is not the case, as NHS guidelines say that women can travel safely well into their pregnancy. That argument also misses the point, as this narrow amendment is not about removal; it is about detention. If it is the Government’s case that pregnant women may not be removed, it is even more important that this amendment be accepted, so that pregnant women are not detained for lengthy periods of time.
The amendment does not undermine the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment; I have been very careful to try to avoid those. It impacts just a small number of women, but it will have a big impact on those women’s health and futures.
My noble friend the Minister is sincere when he says that the Government do not wish to detain pregnant women for any longer than is strictly necessary. Sadly, however, before this protection was in place and in legislation, women were kept in detention for weeks and sometimes months. We should not return to that. This narrow amendment is designed to ensure that that does not happen and that no women can slip through the cracks. Even at this last minute, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment. If he does not, however, and the amendment is pressed, I will, with regret, vote against the Government and in support of the amendment.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches are pleased to support both amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I recommend that the Minister take note of the request she has made time and time again in this House for some form of impact assessment in respect of pregnant women.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken earlier on the Bill, but I hope the House will forgive me for speaking for a couple of minutes now.
This debate takes me back 25 years to when I chaired a hospital trust. Pregnant women prisoners from Holloway were brought in wearing handcuffs and were chained to beds when receiving treatment and giving birth. We fought a battle with exactly the people who are supporting this amendment to stop that practice. It left me with an overwhelming long-term view that, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, pregnant women should not be in prison in the first place—and those were pregnant women who had been convicted of crimes. Here, we are talking about the detention of people who have not been convicted of crime in that way: they are migrants who are extremely vulnerable. It would be a terrible, retrograde step to take away the protections they have at the moment, so I support the amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, enforced equality, no matter where, cannot be right. To say that everybody must be treated precisely the same under this Bill—which is the only substantive argument that has been advanced—is something that I just could not accept.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Lister and the others who have signed these amendments, which we fully support. At its heart, there may be debate and disagreement with respect to this Bill. It is certainly contentious and sometimes we have large disagreements. Despite that, however, whatever the disagreements, we should do the right thing. That is why we support the amendments from my noble friend Lady Lister—because they seek to do the right thing by pregnant women.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, with these amendments we return to the issue of detention time limits in relation to pregnant women. As I explained last Wednesday, holding people in detention is necessary to ensure that they are successfully removed from the United Kingdom under the scheme provided for in the Bill, which is designed to operate quickly and fairly.
However, our aim is to ensure that no one is held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of all illegal entrants back to their home country or to a safe third country will send a clear message that vulnerable individuals, including pregnant women, cannot be exploited by the people-smuggling gangs facilitating their passage across the channel in small boats on the false promise of starting a new life in the UK.
Under the Bill, detention is not automatic. The Bill confers powers to detain, and the appropriateness of detention will be considered on a case-by-case basis. As regards pregnant women, we expect that anyone who is in the later stages of pregnancy and who cannot be removed in the short term will not be detained but would instead be released on immigration bail.
For women who are detained in the earlier stages of pregnancy, we already operate our adults at risk policy, where pregnant women are recognised as a particular vulnerable group. In all cases in which a pregnant woman is detained for removal, the fact of her pregnancy will automatically be regarded as amounting to level 3 evidence under the adults at risk policy, and thus the pregnancy will be afforded significant weight when assessing the risk of harm in continued detention. This means a woman known to be pregnant should be detained only where the immigration control factors that apply in her case outweigh the evidence of her vulnerability—in this case, the evidence of her pregnancy. Such control factors at level 3 are where removal has been set for a date in the immediate future or where there are public protection concerns.
The detention of a pregnant woman must be reviewed promptly if there is any change in circumstances, especially if related to her pregnancy or to her welfare more generally. Examples of specific welfare considerations that may need to be taken into account include the stage of pregnancy, whether there have been complications in the pregnancy, any known appointments for scans, care or treatment, and whether particular arrangements may be needed to facilitate safe removal. While in detention, pregnant women will receive appropriate healthcare.
I assure the House that, as now, the enforced removal of a pregnant woman must be pursued only where it can be achieved safely and there is no suggestion that her baby is due before the planned removal date. Additionally, pregnant women will not be removed from the UK if they are not fit to travel based on medical assessments.
Given the safeguards we have already built into the arrangements for the detention of pregnant women, the Government remain of the view that these amendments, however well-meaning, are not necessary. I am very grateful to those who have spoken in this debate for outlining their—I am sure—well-held concerns and for their thoughtful contributions. However, in light of what I have just said, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her Amendment 64. If, however, she is minded to test the opinion of the House, I invite noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who spoke, and to the Minister as well. Unfortunately, I do not think that he really heard, or listened to, the arguments put. He says he does not think that the amendment is necessary. I am sorry, but countless health organisations, Members of this House and many others think that it is. It is not enough simply to give us assurances here. I have no choice but to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 (which limits the detention of pregnant women normally to 72 hours under existing powers of immigration detention) will apply to the new powers of detention created by Clause 10 of the Bill.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
“17A(A1) This paragraph is subject to section 11(7) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 66 to 76, which stand in my name, and in support of Amendments 77 to 79. The substance of my amendments is in Amendment 76. What I apprehend will happen, if the matter is brought to the opinion of the House, is that we will vote on Amendment 66 and, if it is carried, Amendments 67 to 76 will be moved formally. That seems the correct procedure to me; I have not been contradicted in that.
The amendments I have tabled are designed to confirm that the lawfulness of immigration detention is not simply put in the hands of Ministers but remains subject to the principles established in common law. All the amendments in this group would reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles and be consistent with the conclusion and recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at paragraph 202 of its report. What did it say? It said:
“The common law approach to immigration detention, established in the case of Hardial Singh, currently operates to ensure that immigration detention complies with Article 5 ECHR”.
Before we possibly hear criticism from some quarters of the House about the use of the European Convention on Human Rights, I remind your Lordships, as a parenthesis, that it has recently been cited by the Government in support of their case in the High Court. They cannot have it both ways; they have had it the way of wanting to support the convention in court. The Joint Committee goes on:
“This recognises that it must be for the courts to determine the legal boundaries of administrative detention … We are extremely concerned that this change would result in an immigration detention system that is not consistent with Article 5 ECHR. The Bill should be amended to ensure that there is independent, judicial oversight of individual liberty and compliance with Article 5”.
What are the Hardial Singh principles? Before I come to them, I will cite a dictum from my noble friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who—very sadly for the rest of us on this side of the House—retired recently. In 2012, in the case of Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department in what was then the House of Lords, rather than the Supreme Court, he stated:
“Freedom from executive detention is arguably the most fundamental right of all”.
That has been adopted, repeated and uncontradicted.
The four limbs of Hardial Singh, which were created by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf in his judgment in that case, have been identified and described in more detail by Lord Dyson as four propositions governing the legality of Immigration Act detention emerging from Hardial Singh:
“i) The Secretary of State must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose;
ii) The deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances;
iii) If, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect deportation within that reasonable period, he should not seek to exercise the power of detention;
iv) The Secretary of State should act with … reasonable diligence and expedition”.
Those are magnificent principles, created after repeated cases following our common-law tradition of creating sound precedent when there is not statutory law in place that is lawful.
The court makes its own judgment when applying the Hardial Singh principles and is not limited to reviewing the jurisdiction that has been exercised by a Secretary of State. It can examine “incidental questions of fact”, some of which
“the court may recognise that the Home Secretary is better placed to decide than itself, and the court will no doubt take such account of the Home Secretary’s views as may seem proper”.
Those are the words of Lord Justice Toulson in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department in 2007.
That is the legal basis for these amendments. I will now leave the world of reality and the law and take a short trip into cloud-cuckoo-land. If any of your Lordships wishes to have a quick cup of tea, they can hear a shorter version of this by simply going into iPlayer and listening to last weekend’s edition of “Dead Ringers” on Radio 4, which tore this Bill to pieces in about 35 seconds. We keep hearing from the Minister something that is not based on reality. He seems to have forgotten that the Government lost a case in the Court of Appeal last week. We hear their plea in mitigation that it was a 2:1 decision, but every day in this House we have majority and minority votes. Verdicts of juries by 11 to one or 10 to two are no less verdicts of juries than verdicts by 12 to zero, so that argument has no power whatever.
Above all, we in this House are entitled to expect the Government to obey the law. They cannot send anyone to Rwanda; it is unlawful. The Court of Appeal found that the risk of unlawful refoulement from Rwanda meant that the Rwanda scheme was unsustainable. Furthermore, when the statistics for June—which I mentioned in the House last week—were recalculated yesterday, they showed that the number of people coming on small boats has reached record levels. So it is not exactly the deterrent that the Minister has been calling for repeatedly, unless they are going to change their approach and say, “Come to Britain in your small boats; it’s the quickest way of getting to Rwanda and to the two-star hotel accommodation that is being supplied there”.
We are not in a realistic situation, because they can send nobody to Rwanda at the moment. The appeal to the Supreme Court will not be heard and adjudged upon before October at the earliest. We will probably be into the next Session of Parliament. It is a little bit of an insult to this Parliament that the Government have not obeyed the law as found in that case, withdrawn this Bill and said, “We’ll start again when we have a decision from the Supreme Court”.
We have to be careful that we are the antidote to oblique motives. There are oblique motives based on the assumption, and not on any good grounds, that the Government will be able to send people to Rwanda—maybe they will, maybe they will not, but at the moment they have lost. My request and submission to your Lordships is that the only decent thing this House can do—Members on all sides, and I hope that the lawyers will not contradict this—is support the Hardial Singh principles and back Amendments 66 to 79.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 76 which, in my view, sets out in the clearest possible terms the principles that should be applied to the power of detention presently under discussion. Indeed, if I have correctly understood the law—of which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, reminded us—Amendment 76’s principles are principles that are currently being applied by the courts, and will be applied unless this Bill is enacted in its present form.
It is perhaps worth reminding the House of the strategic purpose of the Bill: to deter would-be migrants by the prospect of deportation to their country of origin or to a safe country. In my view, that is a perfectly legitimate objective; nation states are entitled to regulate the flow of migration. However, I also think that, in the modern world, that can be done only by the collective action of countries working together. That may require—I think it probably will—the substantive amendment of existing international agreements and conventions. I think there is very little prospect of unilateral action succeeding, save on the margins of the problem. The policy that underpins this Bill will fail because it will not be possible to deport migrants in sufficient numbers to constitute an effective deterrent.
Given that, I am extremely concerned about the ability of a Secretary of State to use a power of detention to reinforce, rather than to implement, the policy of deterrence. That would be an improper use of the power of detention. I am also deeply concerned that the power of detention as contemplated by the Bill will be used as an administrative convenience: detention without obvious limits of time in the hope that some possible prospect of deportation in respect of an individual will turn up. In my view, that would be highly objectionable.
I come to the four detailed provisions in Amendment 76. They should be considered individually. I will not repeat each one, because the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has read them out, but just take the first and ask a sensible question:
“the Secretary of State must intend to remove the person being detained and can only use the power to detain for that purpose”.
That seems to be a very fair statement of the law, and we are entitled to know from my noble friend the Minister what the principled objection to such a statement is. The same question applies to each of the remaining three provisions. I will not read them out because the noble Lord already has. Each one of them seems to me to be wholly right as a statement of principle, and this House is entitled to know the principled objection to them if there is one.
As it happens, I think I know the principled objections—at least I know the objections—because they are set out in paragraph 95 of the Explanatory Notes. The Government wish to give the Secretary of State, rather than the courts, the right to determine the length of time deemed to be reasonable for a period of detention. Moreover, when early deportation is not practicable, the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to detain for such a period that the Secretary of State deems reasonable. That is a huge enlargement in the discretionary powers of a Secretary of State, and I do not want to give any Secretary of State, least of all the present Home Secretary or her immediate predecessor, such additional powers. In my view, the judgment of the legality of detention should be left to the judges and the courts, in applying the principles that are so well set out in Amendment 76.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have been asked by my Front Bench not to speak at all and, if I break that, to speak in the shortest possible terms. I can do that, because I completely support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in the speech that he just gave and most particularly in his admonishing the Government for not withdrawing this Bill. I have read the two court judgments and can say only that, until or unless the Supreme Court takes a different view, Clause 2 is a nullity, and that is the heart of the Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I shall be even briefer. I listened with great interest to our two lawyers. They spoke with the fluency and knowledge that one simply has to respect. However, I point out that we face a very difficult policy problem, with serious effects on public opinion towards immigrants and arrivals in Britain. We face a situation in which, so far, what the Government have done has had no or very little effect. If this continues for some months or longer, there will be a serious impact on the authority of this Government and, possibly, the successor Government. I ask the lawyers and other Members of the House to bear those aspects in mind.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Ludford, who cannot be in her place today, I will speak to Amendments 77, 78 and 79, which are in her name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Those three amendments are intended to tackle the same issues as those tackled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, albeit with a different approach. If the noble Lord wishes to press his Amendment 66 to a vote, we will support him.
It is critical that the decision about the reasonableness—we have just heard that word from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—of the length of immigration detention remains a matter for judges, not for the Secretary of State. Incidentally, those who read the judgment of the Appeal Court last week will have noted subsection (5) of paragraph 264, in which the Appeal Court questions
“whether the culture of the Rwandan judiciary will mean that judges are reluctant to reverse the decisions of the Minister”.
This very much puts the separation of powers between the courts and the Executive in Rwanda under question. Here we have virtually the same process, in which the courts of this country are being denied the principles on which they have operated. Set against that is a decision that is down to the reasonableness of the Secretary of State.
It is critical to preserve the Hardial Singh principles to ensure that the most vulnerable people do not have their freedoms curtailed unjustifiably. When the Secretary of State deprives someone of their liberty, there must be a clear avenue for the person to seek independent review of the legality and necessity of their detention. Detention should be for only a short period pending removal. We know now from the judgment that that will be much more unlikely. With no viable agreements in place, save with individual countries for individual persons who belong to those countries, it is highly likely that the 28 days that people will be detained on arrival in the UK will not be pending removal but will be purposely and purely to deter others.
We will be building up more and more people in detention or in some form of curtailed liberties. That is wrong, and it is why the judiciary needs to maintain oversight. This is critical, given that the Bill intends to detain everyone, regardless of age, ill health, disability and trauma. I am pleased to speak to these amendments and, as I say, these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if he wishes to press his amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, when he presses Amendment 66, and we would expect the subsequent amendments he mentioned to be consequential to that. He clearly and helpfully set out the four Hardial Singh principles and gave their legal basis and history, and I thank him for doing so. As he pointed out, the Government themselves recently cited those principles in a High Court case. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who succinctly summed up the Opposition’s view on the Bill. He said that there is little prospect of unilateral action succeeding, and we agree. He deplored the Secretary of State’s using the power of detention to reinforce the message of deterrence, rather than speaking of the need to implement the Bill, and we agree with that as well. He said that the power should not go to the Secretary of State rather than the courts, and he cited the Explanatory Memorandum. We agree with that too, so I thank the noble Viscount for summarising our view of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, said that what the Government have done so far has not had much had effect. The Government are asking us again to support them to do more, yet they have been unsuccessful in the various Bills they have introduced in recent years to try to address this problem. It is a real problem, and there needs to be a different approach to reduce the numbers. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord German, as well. For all those reasons, we will be happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have just heard, Clause 11 clarifies the time period for which the Secretary of State may detain individuals by placing two of the common law Hardial Singh principles on to a statutory footing. As we have also heard, the principles provide that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances, and if it becomes apparent before the expiry of the reasonable period that the Home Secretary will not be able to examine, effect removal or grant leave within a reasonable period, the Home Secretary should not seek to continue the detention.
As my noble friend Lord Hailsham noted, the Explanatory Notes published with the Bill make it clear that it is the Bill’s intention expressly to overturn the common law principle established in R on the application of A v the Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2007, and that henceforth it will be for the Secretary of the State rather than the courts to determine what constitutes a reasonable time period to detain an individual for the specific statutory purpose. In this regard, these amendments seek to preserve the status quo and leave it to the courts to determine the reasonableness of the period of detention. I put it to your Lordships that it is properly a matter for the Home Secretary rather than the courts to decide such matters, as the Home Office will be in full possession of all the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in the circumstances.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
If my noble friend is right, he is effectively saying that people who are detained will be released if there is no prospect of deportation. If that is right, the policy of deterrence is entirely without merit.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My noble friend is right, in that it is one of the Hardial Singh principles that, if there is no reasonable prospect of removal, that person should not be detained. But I cannot agree with him that the policy of deterrence is not right, because it is clearly the Government’s intention to remove any illegal entrants to a safe third country. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I add that the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with that being lawful as a matter of principle.
We recognise that circumstances can change. Where that is the case, detention must be reviewed. If it is considered that the anticipated period of detention is not reasonably necessary, the individual will be bailed. This reflects the existing legal and policy position on the use of detention.
It remains the Government’s view that the provisions in Clause 11 provide an appropriate balance between the respective roles of the Home Secretary and the courts. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Viscount and others who have spoken on the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord German. I now come to this place for my daily dose of disappointment. It seems to me that the Minister is deliberately missing the point. He cannot be failing to see it, and I very much regret having to say that.
Who do noble Lords trust to make these decisions: a Minister or the courts? I will tell them something about the latter, in case they have never seen any of these cases in court. Judges sit day after day in the Administrative Court, hearing case after case involving asylum and refugees, and they make decision after decision about whether a period of detention is too long, too robust or unreasonable in some other way. They have built up a corpus of law which has become reliable and admired not just in this place but throughout our jurisdiction and the common law world.
Make your choice. I am going to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why our courts, and our officials acting under their duties, reach such different decisions from the courts and officials on the continent? Why do we reject only 25% of claims for asylum, whereas France rejects 75%?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this is Report and that intervention is not appropriate, I am afraid.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Whether it is appropriate or not—and I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on that subject—it seems to me that the noble Lord who just intervened has made a very selective judgment without analysing the continental cases that have taken place. I have given a fair description of what happens in our jurisdiction; it is the one that I regard well, and I hope that your Lordships will too.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
“(c) section 11(7) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
Member's explanatory statement
This relates to the amendment in the name of Lord Carlile of Berriew to Clause 11, page 21, line 15.
“(7) None of the amendments made in this section permit detention that is inconsistent with the following principles—(a) the Secretary of State must intend to remove the person being detained and can only use the power to detain for that purpose,(b) the person being removed may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances,(c) if, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Secretary of State will not be able to effect removal within a reasonable period, they must not seek to exercise the power of detention, and (d) the Secretary of State must act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would confirm that the lawfulness of immigration detention remains subject to the principles established in the common law. It would reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles in a single amendment and would be consistent with the JCHR’s conclusion and recommendation at para 202 of the Report.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, the first amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 22 and the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 25 have the effect that the reference to a person in the care of a local authority in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 is replaced with a reference to a person in the care of a relevant authority as defined by that paragraph.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the second amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 22 have the effect that the reference to a social worker of a local authority in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 is replaced with a reference to a registered social worker as defined by that paragraph.
““local authority” —(a) in relation to England, means a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(b) in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council;(c) in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;”Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 9.
““registered social worker” means a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by—(a) Social Work England,(b) Social Care Wales,(c) the Scottish Social Services Council, or(d) the Northern Ireland Social Care Council;” Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 12.
““relevant authority” —(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, means a local authority;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, means an authority within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) (see Article 2(2) of that Order);”Member's explanatory statement
See the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 71, line 9.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
““voluntary organisation” —(a) in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989 (see section 105(1) of that Act);(b) in relation to Scotland, has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (see section 93(1) of that Act);(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (see Article 74(1) of that Order).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment defines “voluntary organisation” for the purposes of the reference to a person in the care of a voluntary organisation in the definition of “appropriate adult” in paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2.
Lord Scriven
“Children Act 1989(1) Upon entry or arrival into England, every child to whom section 3 of this Act applies must have afforded to them all rights under the Children Act 1989.(2) Nothing in this Act may require any act or omission that conflicts with or undermines the obligations, duties or responsibilities of the Secretary of State under the Children Act 1989, in particular the principle that the child’s welfare be a primary consideration and that particular regard be given to the child’s wishes and feelings.(3) This Act must not cause any delay in ensuring that unaccompanied children become looked after as soon as the child's age has been determined.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures all children who enter or arrive in England under section 2 are afforded the rights available under the Children Act 1989. It also provides that well-established duties under that Act are not undermined by the requirements of this Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 87 is in my name, and I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for adding their names to it. We on these Benches support all the amendments in this group. With the exception of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who wishes to remove Clauses 15 and 16 from the Bill—that would be the ideal solution but is unlikely to win the day—they try to fully understand the relationship between the Home Secretary’s new powers as indicated in Clauses 15 and 16 and the obligations and duties of local authorities to children as laid out in the Children Act 1989.
The statutory scheme for looked-after children has been carefully developed over many decades, with safeguards added in response to learning from systematic failings and research into different aspects of child well-being. Empowering the Home Secretary to radically change that statutory scheme and the provisions around it on the basis of how a child arrives in a local authority area is both radical and untested; it restructures England’s child welfare system.
Where there was total clarity on the interests of the child, the clauses bring ambiguity and confusion. I am confused, as are many other noble Lords, about how the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clauses 15 and 16 are in line with the duties and obligations of local authorities. Unaccompanied children seeking asylum are children in need under the Children Act 1989, and local authorities have specific duties to them and specific powers—for example, under Sections 17 and 47. Under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act, certain activities have to follow.
Section 22C of the Children Act sets out the ways in which local authorities are to accommodate and maintain children. Section 23ZA requires local authorities to regularly visit looked-after children. Sections 25A and 26 place a duty on local authorities to appoint an independent reviewing officer for looked-after children and to make arrangements for independent advocates for them.
The first question I wish to tease out is: when children are removed—either put into the Home Office accommodation initially or removed at the request of the Secretary of State—do they still have looked-after status? If so, how will provision be made for local authorities to carry out the duties they have to looked-after children? The significant question is: what happens when the local authority deems that the Home Office accommodation is not in the best interests of the child, as the statutory scheme suggests? Under this provision of the Bill, can the local authority override the Secretary of State’s request to move a child into certain accommodation and move them into accommodation that is in their best interest? It is a key question that was asked in Committee which the Minister did not answer. The Minister said that he would write to noble Lords on this issue, and I am very pleased that at 12 pm today a letter dated 3 July arrived in our inboxes.
However, that letter creates further confusion and does not answer the following central questions. How will local authorities be able to conduct all their duties under the Children Act 1989? Why does the Secretary of State’s new power lie in the provisions of that Act in terms of where a child shall be put, particularly in terms of the best interests of the child? We really need clarity to be able to understand the interrelationship and how local authorities can carry out their full legal duties under the Children Act 1989 to put the interests of the child first. The Minister was unable to clarify this in Committee and it is important that those issues are now clarified on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare that I was President of the Family Division and tried endless care cases involving local authorities. I am extremely concerned about Clauses 15 and 16 and their interrelation with the Children Acts, particularly the Children Act 1989. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has already pointed out, the Secretary of State does not have parental responsibility for children.
I pointed this out to the Minister several times in Committee. So far, and I do not mean to be impolite, I am not sure that either he or—more importantly—the Home Office have put their minds to the implications of parental responsibility. I have not seen a copy of the letter that apparently was sent. It would have been helpful if I had seen it before I came to this House, because since I have been here I am afraid that I have not been looking at my emails.
The local authority is, under the Children Act, the only corporate parent and no one else can be. If the local authority goes to the court and seeks a care order under Section 31 of the Children Act 1989, there will be a court order requiring the local authority to keep the child and place the child in appropriate accommodation. I ask the Minister: has the Home Office has reflected on what Clause 16 is saying—that the Home Secretary can take a child away from local authority accommodation and put that child somewhere else? Is it intended that this Bill is to override the Children Acts and create a new situation where parental responsibility is of no significance if the Home Secretary considers that a child should be dealt with by the Home Office and not a local authority?
This is a very serious legal situation for children. Although there may not be all that number of younger children, there are certainly some. Even a child of 16 is entitled to the care of a local authority. I just wonder whether the Government have thought through the implications of this. I do not believe that this matter will be taken to a vote, which I am rather sad about in a way, because I would like the Government to put their minds to the existing law—which, I have to tell noble Lords, a Conservative Government passed in 1989, and I was one of those who played a part in the legislation. I am extremely sad to see these two clauses.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 87. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I do not support the other amendments, which would get rid of these clauses entirely.
I had hoped not to have to put my name to that amendment, particularly as I hoped there would be a government amendment because of the clarification by the Family Division of the High Court during Committee on 9 June, in a case brought by Article 39, which was trying to make missing unaccompanied asylum-seeking children wards of court. It is interesting to note in that case that the lead submissions from the Government were not from my noble friend the Minister’s department but from the Department for Education, which holds the responsibility for the Children Act.
I have a simple question to my noble friend the Minister. As a Conservative, I believe it is important that every child has a parent. While the children are accommodated by the Home Office when they initially come into the country, who has parental responsibility? From my reading of the Bill—I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—we are changing a fundamental principle in our law and children may not have a parent, without due consideration of the consequences. It might just be for two days, two weeks or four weeks, but it is really important.
I can foresee, even on my cursory glance at this, at least three cracks in that foundation. First, if a child who is being accommodated in these hotels or hostels ends up at A&E and needs an operation but there is no parent to consent to that surgery—so to do that surgery would be an assault—then precious NHS time would be spent contacting the Home Office and not caring for patients.
The second healthcare situation is that children can be detained under the Mental Health Act. That Act gives important powers, duties and safeguards to the statutory nearest relative—and there is a list of those. Again, if a child is under a care order, under the Mental Health Act the corporate parent is the nearest relative. If the child has no parent and is detained in a secure mental health unit, who will be the nearest relative? Again, precious NHS resources will be, in my view, ill-used.
The most worrying crack—which I hope I am wrong about; I remind noble Lords that I am not a criminal lawyer, and I have done my best when looking at this piece of legislation—is that, when child protection functions under Parts 4 and 5 of the Children Act, such as Section 31, are exercised, there is then a very important exemption for local authorities or public authorities from criminal liability under Section 7 of the corporate manslaughter Act 2007. I would be grateful to hear my noble friend the Minister’s view on that statute. It defines senior management. That perhaps includes the board, civil servants in the department, as well as Ministers and, potentially, the Secretary of State. Giving evidence to public inquiries and appearing before Select Committees is commonplace for civil servants; what is not commonplace is being called as a witness to a Crown Court trial for such a prosecution of the corporate body, the Home Office, which is included under Schedule 1 to the corporate manslaughter Act. If there were to be a change of Government next year, it might be the right honourable Member for Pontefract going to the trial, and it would not be good enough for her to say, “We had only been in office for two weeks before the child fell out of the hotel window”.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships for many minutes and will not do so, but I will speak in support of Amendment 87. It will probably not be pushed to a vote, but, if it were, it would help us to regain our self-respect as a nation that cares about the plight of unaccompanied migrant children.
When I spoke in Committee on 5 June, I highlighted the fact that 4,500 unaccompanied migrant children have been placed in Home Office-run hotels and not in the care of a local authority, as prescribed by Section 20 of the Children Act 1989. Some 200 of those children have gone missing. A whistleblower working at the hotel in Brighton said that he believed that they have just disappeared. Perhaps they were trafficked—who knows?—but they have not been found. Some of the children are as young as 10; they are put into hotels, unaccompanied and unsupervised, at the age of 10.
I pressed the Minister in Committee—as I did before and after—to explain which Act of Parliament allows the Government to place these children in the care of the Home Office and not local authorities. In his reply, he did not directly answer my question, but what he said is important:
“The present position will change when this Bill passes”.—[Official Report, 5/6/23; col. 1174.]
I am not trying to put the Minister on the spot—he has enough woes trying to take through this awful piece of legislation—but, from his answer, I must deduce that the Government are acting unlawfully. They know that they are acting unlawfully and that they are not properly caring for these unaccompanied migrant children. All children arriving in this country should surely be afforded the rights under the Children Act 1989. Let us ask ourselves: who among us, if, God forbid, it was one of our children facing this perilous situation, would not want them to be properly cared for?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 89, and I am grateful to my noble friends from differing Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic—for their support. It is a damning indictment that an amendment of this nature is even required, as it proposes such a basic safeguard to ensure the well-being of unaccompanied children. It requires that, if a child is to be transferred from local authority child protection systems, a justification should be provided as to why it is in their best interests to be looked after by the Home Office rather than the local authority.
It is reasonable that councils should not be mandated to follow a child transfer direction, regardless of any safeguarding or protection concerns. If the Government are unwilling to accept this point, can the Minister say how they will enable the appropriate scrutiny of a decision to move a child out of the formal child protection system and ensure the highest level of safeguarding consideration? These questions deserve full and detailed answers, since the Bill does not set any standards, safeguards or protective obligations for the Home Office when providing accommodation for children. It is even more pertinent given the Home Office’s own record on accommodating unaccompanied children.
The Minister was pleased to share, during the passage of the Bill, that no children are currently accommodated in hotels, but let us not forget that this does not mean that all unaccompanied children are therefore in the care of local authorities. Up to April this year, 186 children remained missing, and it should keep us all up at night, including Ministers, when we think about whose care those children may now be under.
Regardless of the power that the Bill gives to the Government to accommodate children, two things remain true—both of which have already been explained well. First, the Children Act applies to all children, regardless of nationality, ethnicity or immigration status, and therefore any child under the care of the Home Office should have access to the same level of care and protection as any other child in need. Secondly, as recent legal judgments have shown, the Home Office does not have the expertise, knowledge or experience to look after children.
Therefore, it is only right and just that the power to remove a child from the well-established care system should be exercised only when a child’s well-being will be served by doing so—I suspect that that would be very rare. I share the fear of the Children’s Commissioner that accommodating children outside of foster families or children’s homes will be harmful and unsafe; we have no evidence to the contrary. Fundamentally, the care of children is, first and foremost, not an immigration matter, and safeguarding cannot be allowed to be a casualty in pursuit of the objectives of the Bill. Thus, I also support Amendment 87, for all the reasons already laid out. Neither amendment should be regarded as controversial, as, frankly, a child’s life, security and future are too important for them to become collateral damage. Therefore, I support Amendment 87 and intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 89.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support most strongly the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the other powerful comments already made from the Conservative Benches, the Bishops’ Benches and elsewhere.
My amendments propose that Clauses 15 and 16 should left out of the Bill in their entirety. These clauses, for the first time, provide the legal power for a central government department to take responsibility for extremely vulnerable unaccompanied children and to provide so-called care, protection and support, both while they are children and as adult care leavers.
I understand that the Home Office has recently been housing unaccompanied children in hotels, without the legal authority to do so. But, according to the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick MP, no unaccompanied young people are currently in hotels. The Home Office has recently reopened a hotel in Eastbourne, and another in Brighton and Hove, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law. The local authority in the second case is threatening legal action, and I anticipate that it will be successful.
Ofsted has described the housing of unaccompanied children in hotels as utterly unacceptable. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child called for the urgent repeal of the provision in the Illegal Migration Bill, describing this practice as violating children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the refugee convention 1951. Seven organisations responsible for protecting children have written to us, arguing that they consider Clauses 15 and 16 to be such a danger to unaccompanied children, and to our child welfare system, that they must be removed from the Bill altogether. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services makes the point that unaccompanied children seeking asylum are fleeing desperate situations; they are extremely vulnerable and should not be placed in hotels, where they are open to further exploitations and abuse.
Clauses 15 and 16 are ill conceived and discriminatory in principle. They give the Home Secretary wide powers to house unaccompanied children of any age in any type of accommodation for any length of time—housing a one year-old or 18 month-old in great big ex-Army barracks, or whatever. The clauses direct that a local authority stops looking after an individual child irrespective, it appears, of the child’s needs, characteristics, experiences and legal status. They legitimate and potentially make lawful arrangements that hundreds of non-governmental organisations have contended are unlawful for nearly two years.
I know that Amendments 87 and 89 might help a little. However, bearing in mind the powerful comments from his own Bench from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and from other parts of this House, I appeal to the Minister to seek within himself his humanity and to withdraw Clauses 15 and 16 from the Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I do not support Amendment 87. It would undermine the purpose of the measure to prevent and deter illegal and unsafe routes. It would require that all children who enter this country, and are subject to Section 3, be afforded the same rights as afforded to children under the Children Act 1989, as noble Lords have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. That Act includes that the child’s wishes and best interests are taken into account. However, that could undermine Clause 3, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary powers to remove unaccompanied children who enter illegally, albeit with exceptions. Clause 3 is also concerned with returning children to their parents, and there is provision for that where it is safe to do so.
Moreover, Amendment 87 could and would give families across the world an incentive to try to get their children into this country. For the cost of a modest traffickers’ fee, they would be more likely to make a dreadful gamble to get their children here to be educated, housed, looked after and supported at a cost to our taxpayers. Is there any reason—and I think it is important to ask this question—why taxpayers should be asked to pay sums for those who break the law in this way when there are safe and legal routes for entering this country?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
This amendment would provide an incentive to send children by these very dangerous routes. It is the very opposite of the purpose of the Bill, which is to deter people from using unsafe and illegal routes.
Noble Lords may not like what I say, but I cannot put from my mind the dangers occurring to children and women and even men on these unsafe routes. Only two weeks ago, we heard of the trawler which left the Libyan port of Tobruk and sank off the Greek coast. According to reports, over 700 people were on that boat. The women and children were in the hold: not one of them survived.
It is incumbent on this House to avoid giving any possible incentive to people traffickers to continue their unlawful and fatal trade. Anything we can do to stop it, we should do. This scheme is the first practical scheme that I have heard proposed which will deter people trafficking and the smuggling of children into the country by that route. The impact assessment has shown that the Australian scheme worked as a deterrent. For these reasons, I would prefer a practical scheme which deterred the use of these dangerous routes. Your Lordships should give the Bill a chance if we want to stop these fatal crossings.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. The amendments before us do not seek to punish children who are in a situation that many of them have no choice in. We have a duty to them as a humanitarian country with proud traditions. We have a duty to protect children, and that is what we seek to do. We need to remember that we are talking about children here. Whatever we do, I do not want to punish children for however they may have arrived here.
We fully support the amendments of the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly Amendments 87 and 89. Amendment 89, of course, is in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and it is one to which I have added my name, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord German.
I do not want to speak for long, but the point that was made is significant, especially when one looks at Clause 16. The Secretary of State can decide on the transfer date that an unaccompanied child be moved away from the local authority. The point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, goes right to the heart of the issue: the local authority acts as the parent. If you move a child away from that situation, you are effectively making them an orphan. There is nobody responsible for them by law. Is that really what we want? Is that really what we are trying to achieve? We all agree that there is a problem, but we should not make children pay the price of trying to resolve it. That is not the right way of going about it.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed out, the Secretary of State can direct the local authority to cease providing accommodation. There is no discussion between the Secretary of State and the local authority to view what is in the best interests of the child. The Secretary of State can compel the local authority—as the parent—to cease providing accommodation for a child, which will then take them into Home Office-provided accommodation. Within that Home Office accommodation, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, we still have 186 children lost. They are missing. We have no idea where they are. I say it time and again but if the Home Office was a human being and a parent, that human being—the parent known as the Home Office—would be prosecuted. We would not tolerate losing children. We would not say that we are doing all we can. We would ask what on earth is happening that children are being lost. The local authority provides the best solution to looking after unaccompanied children in these circumstances.
The Home Office can demand that of the local authority with no justification. It can demand it with no idea of where these children are going to go and with no idea of the standards to be provided for them. They are simply to be housed in Home Office accommodation or wherever. That is not acceptable to the people of this country, irrespective of the fact that they understand there is a problem with the boats, and irrespective of the fact they understand that something needs to be done. They do not want is to see migrant children, or any child, having to pay the price for that. The Government need to sort it out in another way and ensure that all children in this country are properly protected.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 87 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, seeks to ensure that all children covered by the duty in Clause 2 have the protections afforded to children under the Children Act 1989. No one can disagree with the sentiment behind his amendment. However, in a sense, it misses its intended target, as the 1989 Act does not impose obligations, duties or responsibilities on the Secretary of State but rather on local authorities. There is nothing in this Bill that alters those duties or responsibilities, particularly as regards an unaccompanied child—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Berridge.
That said, Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 already requires that the Home Secretary carry out her functions in a way that takes into account the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the United Kingdom, and I can assure noble Lords that this will continue to be the case.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause brings me to the provisions in Clauses 15 and 16 which were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She seeks to remove those clauses; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham seeks to amend them with Amendments 88A, 89 and 89A.
Clause 15 makes provision for the accommodation of unaccompanied migrant children in scope of this Bill. This clause confers on the Secretary of State a power to provide, or to arrange for the provision of, accommodation and other support to unaccompanied migrant children in England. While the clause contains no time limit on how long any child spends in Home Office accommodation, as I have said previously on a number of occasions, our clear intention is that their stay be a temporary one until they transfer to a local authority for a permanent placement. This is not detained accommodation, and the support that will be provided will be appropriate to the needs of these young people during their short stay.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
The problem is Clause 16, because the Home Office can remove the child from the otherwise permanent care of the local authority. How on earth is what the Minister is saying compatible with Clause 16?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is obviously necessary that the Bill contain a power to allow for such a transfer, in order to ensure the appropriate removal of a child on attaining their majority, for example, or for any other purpose that might be necessary to ensure implementation of the scheme. The Government expect local authorities to meet their statutory obligations to unaccompanied children from the date of their arrival in the United Kingdom, and that the Home Office step in only sparingly and temporarily. Indeed, an unaccompanied child in scope of the scheme may enter local authority care without first being accommodated by the Home Office under this power. However, it is important that there be legal certainty about the ability of the Home Office to step in to ensure that an unaccompanied child arriving on the south coast can immediately be accommodated and supported.
As we have just discussed, Clause 16 then makes provision for the transfer of an unaccompanied migrant child from Home Office accommodation to a local authority in England. The clause provides a mechanism for the Secretary of State to decide that a child is to cease residing in Home Office accommodation and to then direct a local authority in England to provide accommodation to the child, under Section 20 of the Children Act, after five working days of the direction being made. As was the subject of the intervention a moment ago, the Secretary of State may also direct a local authority in England to cease accommodating an unaccompanied child and to transfer the child into accommodation provided by the Home Office after five working days of the direction being made. This power is the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s amendment.
I suggest, with respect to the right reverend Prelate, that this amendment is unnecessary given that protections are already in statute in Section 55 of the 2009 Act, which I have already referred to. The Secretary of State is required to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them. Let me be clear: best interests are not the only factor that must be considered; other relevant factors, such as close consideration of individual circumstances, must be taken into account. In making decisions and devising policy guidance under this Bill, the Home Office will continue to apply the Section 55 duty.
We are working through the operational processes relating to unaccompanied children and the circumstances in which we will use this power. This includes engaging with stakeholders to understand the concerns they might have about the power to transfer unaccompanied children into Home Office accommodation. We are working very closely with the Department for Education, as we want to deliver the objectives of the Bill while being mindful of the needs of children and young people. I hope this provides some reassurance to noble Lords.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I refer my noble friend back to his point about legal certainty and the very narrow question I asked: is it correct that while the Home Office is accommodating these children before they go into local authority accommodation, they actually have no parent?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
It is clearly right that in the situation that arose with the rush of people crossing the channel—which gave rise to this legislation—consideration had to be given to the legislative arrangements. The situation in law is clear and is as my noble friend set out. The Home Office is able, in extreme circumstances, to exercise this power on behalf of local authorities. As I say, the purpose and intention of these provisions is to look after children only for as short a time as possible before transferring them to the care of local authorities. I want to stress that the Home Office is having to accommodate unaccompanied children out of necessity.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that he will put in the Bill that these children would not be in the so-called care of the Home Office for more than, let us say, 48 hours —some very limited period of time? If that is the Government’s intention, can the Minister assure the House that this will be in the Bill and that it really will be for a very short time?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
No; I am afraid I cannot provide that assurance, and the reason for that is obvious. We are dealing with a situation in which we have thousands of people crossing the channel, and we cannot tie the hands of the Home Office in dealing with this great problem that we all face. I say again that we are having to accommodate unaccompanied children out of necessity. My noble friend Lady Lawlor highlighted in her brave speech the Hobson’s choice that we face here. These children will not all immediately enter the care system on arrival in a small boat, simply because the Home Office does not have the powers set out in Clauses 15 and 16. It is right that we take steps to ensure that there is clarity, and I suggest to noble Lords that it is in the best interests of these children that we put in place these measures, which recognise the reality of the current situation.
On the basis of my explanation and the assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will be content to withdraw his amendment, and if the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 89, I invite noble Lords to reject that amendment.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that, like everyone who has listened to this debate, I am now more confused than when it started. Clarity has not been brought. I thank all noble Lords for taking part in the debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who I completely disagree with; she really does not understand the concept of what safeguarding and the rights of the child are once the child is in the UK. That is the issue, and there is no evidence in any impact assessment or anything that the Government have done that says that protecting and safeguarding children under the Children Act 1989 is a pull factor. But I welcome the noble Baroness’s intervention and understand that she starts from a position that is, I am sure, very different from that of nearly everybody else in your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(4A) But the Secretary of State may not make a decision under subsection (4) unless to do so is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority care and into accommodation provided by the Secretary of State, by providing that they may only do so where to do so is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
It is my wish to test the mind of the House because the Minister has not answered some of the questions, and my concerns remain. Some of us have not seen a copy of the letter that was circulated to some noble Lords, so can the Minister undertake to ensure that it gets circulated to those who have been involved in these debates? We really need the local authority to have the say in this, so I beg leave to test the mind of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(b) that person is or may be a modern slavery survivor, save where the exceptions set out in section 21(3) apply.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(d) a person has been identified by a First Responder as appropriate for referral into the National Referral Mechanism;(e) a decision by a competent authority regarding reasonable grounds is pending;(f) a decision has been made by a competent authority that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking (a “positive reasonable grounds decision”), and has not yet received a conclusive grounds decision;(g) the person is in the course of challenging a negative reasonable grounds decision;(h) the person has received a positive conclusive grounds decision;(i) the person is in the course of challenging a negative conclusive grounds decision.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
“(3A) Subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person if the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom. (3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—(a) section 22,(b) section 23, and(c) section 24.(4) In this section—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them from being provided with support during the recovery period or being granted limited leave to remain.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
“(10A) A person falling within section 2(1) or section 3(2) will not be treated as a threat to public order solely on the grounds of meeting the conditions set out therein.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 101 pre-empts Amendment 102.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seeks to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, this amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Morrow, who sends his apologies. He is unable to attend today and has asked me to move it in his place. I beg to move.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to Clause 21 in the name of Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 104 pre-empts Amendment 105.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seeks to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, with others in the name of Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seek to amend the Bill so that potential and recognised victims of trafficking will not be detained or removed before they get the opportunity to submit an application to the NRM and have it duly considered.
Baroness Brinton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to exclude children from the provisions of Clause 29.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford is unable to be in her place today. I am introducing her Amendments 114 and 116 in this group, which remove children from the effects of the loss of citizenship pathways under the Bill. On these Benches we welcome the government amendments removing the original Clause 30(4) from the Bill, which would have barred British citizenship children born in the UK after 7 March 2023 if a parent had entered the UK illegally. We also welcome the amendment that removes bars to citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981—the settled route and the 10-year route. I thank the Minister for the helpful meeting regarding British national (overseas) citizens. I look forward to hearing from him, perhaps on Wednesday, that BNO passport holders will get clearer and correct information from immigration officials in the future.
However, despite the Government’s amendments, there are still key risks for children who the Government admit will rarely qualify for citizenship under Clause 2. That is why Amendments 114 and 116 remove children from the loss of routes to UK citizenship. The fundamental problem that needs to be resolved here is that, as we discussed in the debate on the previous group, as children arrive in the UK they are put under the responsibility of a local authority. As minors, our state decrees that these children cannot make decisions for themselves, so the logic must also be that when they were brought into the UK they were not deemed to have the capacity to make that decision. We noted that the Minister said that there is a potential safeguard under Clause 35 if a decision were to breach the UK’s obligation under the ECHR, but it was just reported again, on Saturday in the i newspaper, that the Government want to remove the UK from the ECHR.
The Government’s intention to prevent these children obtaining British citizenship would close off all the major routes to citizenship if their parents were irregular entrants: the discretionary route, the settled route and the 10-year route. On these Benches we believe that children who are deemed by the state not to be able to make decisions about themselves should not be penalised by the Bill, particularly because they are in the care of the state. On these grounds, I beg to move Amendment 114.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 115 and 117 to 125 in this group, all standing in my name. They have a similar approach to that set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but the focus is rather different, as I shall explain.
I support the general thrust of the Bill; the argument for the Bill is that it creates a number of deterrents to people arriving in this country illegally. The principal deterrent is of course that of immediate, or at least rapid, removal to another country. But the Bill goes further than that and also seeks to deprive those who have fallen foul of the tests in Clause 2 of their subsequent right to apply for naturalisation as a British subject or, more crucially and to the point of my amendments, their right to apply for registration as a British subject at any point in the future.
Noble Lords are well aware that there is a great distinction between naturalisation and registration. Naturalisation is a concession by the state to those who are not British, to allow them to become British. It is perfectly natural that there should be conditions attached to that, and those conditions very often can and do include good behaviour conditions—such as, perhaps, if the Bill passes, not having previously arrived illegally in a small boat.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for bringing back these amendments, but I am disappointed that he had to do so given the strong case that he made for them in Committee. They are important from the perspective of both citizenship and the rights of children. I once again declare my interest as a patron of the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens.
From reading the exchanges in Committee, it seemed to me that the Minister was not really listening to the arguments put but simply responded by trying to justify what, in our view, is unjustifiable. Once again, children are the main victims, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whose amendments I also support. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said, it was welcome that the Minister, when challenged on this point, did not impute any culpability to children. However, the fact remains that children are being punished for the actions of a parent, which is contrary to the refugee and other conventions, as has been pointed out by the UNHCR, JCHR and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, among others. This is yet another instance of where we need to see the child rights impact assessment yet, despite the Government Chief Whip promising it for today “if possible”, there is still no sign of it.
It is not an indicator of strength to refuse to countenance any amendments in pursuit of the mythical god of deterrence, regardless of the force of the argument. The main losers are, again, children, whose best interests are being ignored and trampled on. I hope the Minister will think again today.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relate to the bans on re-entry, settlement and citizenship which are a key part of the deterrent effect of the Bill and send an important message that, if you enter the country illegally, you will not be able to build a life here.
Amendments 114 and 116, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and spoken to so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to remove from the scope of the bans those who meet the duty in Clause 2 but who are under the age of 18.
As the Bill is currently constructed, anyone, including children, who meets the criteria of the duty also becomes subject to permanent bans on obtaining leave to remain, settlement, citizenship and re-entry. The application of the bans is irrespective of whether the child was complicit in the act of entering illegally. I hope that addresses the points noble Lords have raised in that regard.
The inclusion of children is to ensure that there is no perverse incentive for parents or others to put children in harm’s way by forcing them on to small boats or other dangerous methods in an attempt to gain entry to the UK. We want to send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and forced into making dangerous attempts to gain entry into the UK for the purpose of starting a new life here. Instead, the only way to come to the UK for protection will be through safe and legal routes. This will take the power out of the hands of criminal gangs and protect vulnerable people, including children.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Could he update the House, in light of what my noble friend Lady Lister said, on where we are with the child rights impact assessment?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I was saving that until the end of my remarks, which I will do, if I may.
Under our proposals, anyone who has entered illegally will be removed, so it is unlikely that they will qualify for settlement or citizenship on the basis of long and lawful residence. I therefore take my noble friend Lord Moylan’s point, in that regard. However, the powers in the Bill provide the Secretary of State with the discretion to waive the bans in specific circumstances, as we discussed in Committee. In practice, these powers mean that the Secretary of State retains the discretion to waive the bans on obtaining settlement as well as to consider an application for citizenship where they consider that failure to do so would result in a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the ECHR.
The Bill also provides additional discretionary powers to waive the bans on limited leave to remain and re-entry. The Secretary of State may waive the ban on re-entry if they consider that other exceptional circumstances make it appropriate to allow someone to return; these would include to ensure compliance with international agreements to which the UK is a party. Similarly, in the limited leave to remain area, there is a power allowing the Secretary of State to waive the ban where it is appropriate to ensure compliance with the ECHR or other international agreements to which the UK is a party, as well as where an individual who is seeking to remain in the UK has been allowed to return on the basis of other exceptional circumstances.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan for again raising these interesting issues in the amendments he has tabled. They seek to change provisions in Clauses 30 to 36 so that the citizenship ban applies only to naturalisation and not registration routes. I am grateful to my noble friend for meeting me to talk about this. We had a useful discussion, although we did not quite reach agreement on these topics.
Our view is that registration is not just about recognising a person’s claim to British citizenship that they do not have the documents to demonstrate. Instead, a number of the registration routes within the British Nationality Act have requirements based on residence and many have good character requirements. It is not a case, as my noble friend has suggested, of merely acknowledging a status that a person already holds, but an opportunity for a person to demonstrate their suitability to become British.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Government Chief Whip promised that it would be published well before Report concludes. Does the Minister really think that tomorrow is well before Report concludes on Wednesday?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is clearly not the case. I accept that the Government Chief Whip did not exactly say that it would be put before your Lordships’ House today, but the expectation was that it would be. We have reached 7 pm; we are debating children’s issues and have done so all the way through Report, and we have not got the children’s impact assessment. It is utterly unacceptable for the Government to run a contentious Bill in this way. All the impact assessments were late, by and large. This is particularly late; it is no way to carry on. I can understand my noble friend Lady Lister’s upset and anger at this, and my noble friend Lord Kennedy raised it last week. The Minister knows, frankly, the anger and disappointment there is about this. I do not know what else to say, other than: what does “tomorrow” mean? Is it first thing tomorrow morning, or will it turn up at 8 or 9 pm, just before Report finishes? Perhaps the Minister can clarify what tomorrow means, and register the deep anger and upset in this House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Before the Minister answers, I will add to what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, I have been particularly concerned about children. As far as I can remember, there are no more amendments of any significance in relation to children in the final part of Report. All I have said has been without sight of the impact statement. For me and many other noble Lords who are concerned about children, it is quite simply too late.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I have looked into the history of child rights impact assessments, and they are a rare document. Tomorrow, when the assessment is provided, noble Lords will see an explanation of the background to these documents. There is an element of opportunism about the timing; clearly, these are difficult documents that need to be prepared with care. I say that it will be published tomorrow, so it will be published tomorrow, and at this point I cannot give any more detail as to the precise timing.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because many of the points have been made by others during the debate. Yet again the Minister has not answered the speakers’ questions. Yet again we are having a discussion, to discover that the impact assessment on child rights will be with us tomorrow after we have debated some key amendments. He did not respond to the issue I raised about why, if a child is in care when they arrive in this country, they are deemed to be able to make decisions. This is going to end up in the courts if the Government will not listen. Every single part of the response to this group has been an embarrassment and a real shame for children’s rights. I will not press this to a vote but the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, may wish either to bring something back at Third Reading or to communicate directly with the Minister.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the name of a “factual suspensive claim” to a “removal conditions suspensive claim”.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment changes the definition of what will become a “removal conditions suspensive claim” so that it includes any claim that a person does not meet the removal conditions.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations which amend the definition of “working day” in clause 37(8).
Lord Etherton
“Serious harm suspensive claims: interpretation(1) The definitions in subsections (2) and (3) have effect for the purposes of section 37, this section and sections 39 to 51.(2) A “serious harm suspensive claim” means a claim by a person (“P”) who has been given a third country removal notice that the serious harm condition is met in relation to P.(3) The “serious harm condition” is that P would face a real risk of serious harm if removed from the United Kingdom under this Act to the country or territory specified in the third country removal notice.(4) The following are examples of harm that constitute serious harm for the purposes of this Act—(a) death;(b) persecution falling within subsection (2)(a) or (b) of section 31 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (read together with subsections (1) and (3) of that section) (Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention: persecution) where P is not able to avail themselves of protection from that persecution;(c) torture;(d) inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;(e) onward removal from the country or territory specified in the third country removal notice to another country or territory where P would face a real risk of any harm mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)—(a) protection from persecution can be provided by—(i) the government of the relevant country or territory, or (ii) any party or organisation, including any international organisation, controlling the relevant country or territory or a substantial part of it;(b) P is to be taken to be able to avail themselves of protection from persecution if—(i) the government, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) takes reasonable steps to prevent the persecution by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution, and(ii) P is able to access the protection.”Member's explanatory statement
This revised version of Clause 38: (1) removes any reference to “the relevant period”, (2) removes any reference to irreversibility of harm, and (3) removes examples of harm that do not constitute or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, this amendment relates to serious harm suspensive claims, and it is important because the Government intend that suspensive claims are the only way that removal notices can be challenged. The point I have been concerned with from the beginning is the position of people who are served with a removal notice in respect of a country in which they have a well-founded fear of persecution if removed there, and they would fall within Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention. In other words, vis-à-vis that country, they would be regarded as refugees. Do they have to show in addition, as required by Clause 38(3),
“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and”—
this is the critical word—“irreversible harm” to succeed on a serious harm suspensive claim? That would be not only novel but against all principle, and the meaning, intent and wording of the refugee convention.
The point has been illustrated—I have tried to illustrate it, and the Government have taken it up—in the particular case of LGBTQ+ claimants. The decision in the case of HJ (Iran) and HG (Cameroon) was that, in order to qualify as a refugee under the convention, it is sufficient that, if they would wish to live openly as LGBTQ, they would face persecution, even if they would not suffer such persecution if they acted discreetly. The question was, if they or somebody from that community were served with a removal notice and it were to a place where members of that particular social group, within the meaning of the convention, would have reasonable fear of persecution, would they have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm, and within a specified period? I urge your Lordships to accept that that would be entirely wrong.
Throughout this debate on the Bill, my understanding has been that the Minister has said that, yes, such a group would have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm. That seems inconsistent with Clause 38(4)(b), which states:
“The following are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of this Act … (b) persecution falling within … Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention … where P”—
the refugee—
“is not able to avail themselves of protection from that persecution”.
My heart therefore leapt with joy last Wednesday when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who stood in as Minister, say:
“The point I am making is that the serious harm suspensive claim in connection with Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim.”—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 767.]
However, I received a letter sent at 2pm this afternoon from the Minister which seemed to indicate that he was still insisting that, in addition, one would have to show irreversible harm. All I wish to receive from the Minister to avoid a vote on this is an assurance that, where it is clear that there would be persecution of a recognised category within the convention regarding the country specified in the removal notice, that fact alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a serious harm suspensive claim, and that the principle laid down in HJ (Iran) regarding LGBTQ people will continue to apply.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I will speak first to Amendment 131, which would survive even if the amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton has spoken were carried and Clause 38 rewritten.
I am seeking to make a very simple point: the power in Clause 39 to
“by regulations amend section 38 to make provision about the meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ for the purposes of this Act”
is unqualified and wide enough to enable the Secretary of State to remove some of the instances of serious harm set out in Clause 38 as it is or as it may be amended. The examples of serious harm given there are absolutely obvious, and they are indeed very serious. It would be a great misfortune if, by some misadventure, the Secretary of State were to remove one or other example from that list for some reason. I would have thought that the Minister could accept the amendment as a sensible qualification of the otherwise unqualified power in Clause 39. I am simply repeating a point I made in Committee, but it is rather important to have clarity on this. The Minister can give an assurance—no doubt he will—that there is no intention to remove examples from Clause 38, but that is not really good enough. It needs to be set out in terms in Clause 39.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, for the reasons that both noble and learned Lords have explained, we support all the amendments in this group. Should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, not get a satisfactory answer from the Minister, we will support him if he divides the House.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the House will be aware that I support the direction of travel of the Bill quite strongly. It represents a serious effort—it may be a vain one, and will certainly be so if the Government accept all the loopholes in the amendments we have discussed this afternoon—to address an issue of considerable concern to our fellow citizens. But, although I support the direction of travel, that does not mean that I think it perfect in every sense. I will therefore take a minute to support Amendment 131, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead—to which he has just spoken—and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
I do not want to add to the background as the noble and learned Lord has obviously explained that very clearly. However, this does come under the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I tried to draw to the attention of both Houses when we chaired the Delegated Powers Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee respectively: the way in which power has been slipping through the hands of Parliament, with extensive and wide powers being taken by means of secondary legislation. Some might say that their use is improper, but let us say “extensive” for the purposes of this afternoon. Too often, these issues should have had a degree of scrutiny appropriate for primary legislation, and it is not satisfactory to introduce major issues of policy without that scrutiny.
We have to remember that we do need secondary legislation. Without it, the Government’s machine would gum up completely. But we need to make sure that its use is restricted to what it says on the tin—namely, issues of secondary importance. In my view, Clause 39, entitled
“Meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’,”
is of pretty fundamental importance.
I agree with the need for regulation. The world moves on much faster than the rather stately pace of primary legislation. That is why I could not support Amendment 132 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Paddick, because it seeks to delete the whole clause. We need some regulatory power. In much the same way, I am concerned about Amendment 130, because it opens up a whole series of other loopholes that impede the impact of the Bill as a whole.
In response to the wider powers that the Government are seeking under the present formulation, Parliament is entitled to ask for some limits on future ministerial power. Let me use the analogy of driving down a road. The Government are entitled to drive down the road, but in turn Parliament is entitled to ask for guard-rails—guard-rails that will ensure that a future Minister cannot swerve off into parts of—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and for all his remarks thus far. Would he agree with me, in the light of the Companion, that this would be a good moment to hear from his noble friend the Minister?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
If the noble Baroness had given me another two sentences, I would have finished. I was going to say we need guard-rails to make sure that future Ministers do not swerve off in directions hitherto undreamed of. It is because I think Amendment 131 represents those guard-rails that I support it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Were the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, minded to test the opinion of the House, he would certainly find us supporting him on Amendment 130.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it was remiss of me not to say a little about Amendment 126 and the other government amendments in this group, so I will do so now. These amendments, as I am sure Members of the House have realised, replace a “factual suspensive claim” with a “removal conditions suspensive claim”. Clearly, I and the department listened carefully to the contributions from noble Lords in Committee on these topics about these suspensive claims, in particular those helpful contributions from the Cross Benches. The changes in the category of suspensive claim are a direct reflection of what was said during those debates.
Currently, a factual suspensive claim can be raised where a mistake of fact has been made in deciding that a person meets the four removal conditions in Clause 2. This definition would prevent a claim being raised where a person had been incorrectly identified as meeting the four removal conditions due to a mistake of law. A removal conditions suspensive claim will instead provide for a claim to be raised where a person who has been given a removal notice informing them that they are subject to the duty to remove does not consider that they meet the removal conditions in Clause 2. The Secretary of State’s or Upper Tribunal’s consideration of a removal conditions suspensive claim will be on whether or not the removal conditions were met. I trust these amendments will be welcome, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who queried the scope of these claims in Committee.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Hope, for setting out the case for the other amendments in this group. A serious harm suspensive claim is a claim that a person would, before the end of the relevant period, face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom to a country other than their country of origin. The serious and irreversible harm test is designed to be a high threshold and reflects the test applied by the European Court of Human Rights when considering whether to indicate an interim measure under Rule 39 of the rules of court. “Serious” indicates that the harm must meet a minimum level of severity, and “irreversible” means the harm would have a permanent or very long-lasting effect. These amendments seek to change how Clause 38 of the Bill defines the risk of harm, lowering the threshold for a serious harm claim to succeed.
Amendment 130 would remove the requirement for the harm to occur in the period it will take for any human rights claim or judicial review to be determined from the safe third country. I suggest it is reasonable to expect the harm to occur over a defined period. The very purpose of the suspensive claim process is to prevent those persons subject to the duty to remove suffering serious and irreversible harm during the same period that their human rights claims are considered. Without this requirement, it would be difficult for decision-makers properly to assess the likelihood of any risk materialising. It would also risk abusive suspensive claims being made on the basis of a risk of harm that does not currently exist or that may not materialise until months or even years after a person has been removed from the United Kingdom.
Amendment 130 would also remove the requirement for the risk of harm to be irreversible. This would significantly lower the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim to succeed and undermine the purpose of the Bill to deter illegal entry to the United Kingdom. Again, I would point out that the test applied by the Strasbourg court when considering applications for Rule 39 interim measures is one of serious and irreversible harm. So, the serious harm condition and requirement for the risk of harm to be both serious and irreversible reflects that test.
Lastly, Amendment 130 would also remove specific examples of harm that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm. Setting out a clear approach regarding the interpretation of serious harm on the face of the Bill will, I suggest to noble Lords, ensure that decision-makers and the courts take a consistent approach in their consideration of what amounts to a risk of serious and irreversible harm. The examples in Clause 38(5) reflect existing case law and go no further than how we currently approach the consideration of these issues when raised in protection claims.
Amendment 131 would prevent amendments to the examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm set out in Clause 38(4), as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, so eloquently set out. I assure the House that the Government do not intend to diminish or remove the examples of harm listed in Clause 38(4).
Amendment 132 would remove the regulation-making power in Clause 39 to amend the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”. This would result in the Secretary of State being unable to make amendments which reflect developments in case law. It is worth again pointing out that the Delegated Powers Committee raised no issue with this power in its report on the Bill.
Amendment 133 would alter the requirement for a serious harm suspensive claim to include “compelling” evidence of the risk of harm that a person would face if removed to a third country and replace it with a requirement to provide evidence that is “reliable, substantial and material”. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks on the clarity of those three words, which, of course, will be available in Hansard should any questions arise as to what might amount to “compelling”.
However, although evidence that is compelling may also be defined as evidence that is reliable, substantial and material, a requirement for evidence to be compelling is more appropriate and succinct, given that it is the overall impact of the evidence provided, not any particular element or feature of it, that is relevant. The term “compelling” is sufficiently clear and well understood by decision-makers, and should remain unaltered. It is a term that has use in this area of the law. For example, evidence provided by people raising suspensive claims may differ dramatically in terms of volume and substance, but it is the overall impact of such evidence that is crucial when determining whether any claim has merit. For those reasons, the term “compelling” is more appropriate, providing decision-makers and the courts with the right degree of flexibility when making decisions on suspensive claims and appeals.
Finally, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seek to extend the claim and decision periods provided for in Clauses 41 and 45. We consider the periods specified in the Bill to be fair and equitable, affording sufficient time to submit and determine claims, commensurate with the Bill’s objective to remove people swiftly from the United Kingdom. However, I remind the noble Baroness that, where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, it will be possible to extend both the claim period and the decision period.
For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully ask that the noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am afraid he has not answered my request for an assurance at all, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Etherton
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to amend section 38 by regulation by making provision about the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
“(a) that the person does not meet the removal conditions, or(b) that the person meets the removal conditions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
“(b) in the case of a removal conditions suspensive claim, the person does not meet the removal conditions,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1 and page 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
“(b) in relation to a removal conditions suspensive claim, whether the person meets the removal conditions.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1 and pageusb 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 3.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 1.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I suggest that Report be adjourned until not before 8.24 pm.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has suggested that the House adjourn now. We normally have our dinner break around 7.30 pm, I accept that, but I wonder if it would be convenient for the House to continue with the next group, which is a voting group, and then all sides could release their Members.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we had Agreement with the usual channels. I know the Labour group often wants to break at 7.30 pm. I do not wish to have a dispute at the Dispatch Box but I ask that the noble Lord stick with the agreement that we had earlier and return no later than 8.25 pm.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness wants to have the dinner break now, that is fine, but I think we should move a Motion that allows that if the business finishes a bit earlier then the House could come back a bit earlier, rather than a rigid arrangement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that sometimes the dinner break business finishes a bit earlier, and if it does then I am happy that Report resumes then. But the time given for a Statement is usually 40 minutes, and that is exactly what I am giving for the Statement today. That is in the Standing Orders.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I entirely accept the point that it is normally 40 minutes. However, if it finishes earlier then we should move a Motion that will allow us to come back a bit earlier, rather than saying “no earlier than”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I suggest that we have been arguing for two minutes. Can we just do the Statement in the normal way and leave 40 minutes for it?
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 3rd July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
20:41 - Division on Amendment 152 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 152 agreed.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the rule of law requires that Ministers are subject to the same rules as everyone else. This includes the possibility of discretionary interim relief in circumstances where courts believe that irreparable harm to one side in any litigation needs to be prevented while both parties await the final determination of an issue. Some noble Lords, including businesspeople and their lawyers, are perhaps more familiar with commercial than human rights litigation. However, the same principle applies. If I propose to dump or destroy the precious cargo entrusted to me because of alleged breaches by my customer, a court must obviously have the power to delay such drastic action pending crucial determinations of fact and law.
However, Clauses 53 and 54 would, first, completely oust the ability of UK courts to issue interim injunctions temporarily preventing a person’s expulsion to potential peril. Secondly, they would allow Ministers to ignore interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights, of the kind issued in the Rwanda case and those currently in place to prevent Russia executing Ukrainian prisoners of war. My Amendments 152 and 153 would remove these clauses, so as to respect domestic courts and the Strasbourg court. They are in no way wrecking amendments, as these courts only very rarely issue such measures against trustworthy, law-respecting jurisdictions such as we have been historically.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford, who is unable to be here today, has her name to these amendments so I am speaking on her behalf, as it were, and on behalf of these Benches.
I make the general point that interim relief is an intrinsic and sensible part of our law. Injunctions are generally to prevent something happening, to maintain the status quo until there can be thorough consideration of a case. It is that way round because the person who wants to prevent that something happening is at risk of an action which would have a major effect on him—the other way round does not work in the same way. In this case, the action—removal from the UK —would effectively be the end of the story for the claimant and, if not that, it would at least make pursuit of claim from outside the UK very difficult indeed. That is quite different from the depiction we heard last week of a witness on a video link from another room or another building with all the normal support and access to his representatives.
This afternoon, I received an email from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—I stress “Bingham” and “rule of law”; noble Lords will note that title—with quite a long summary of a report on this subject which I understand is to be published tomorrow. It concludes that although improvements could be made to the process in the European Court of Human Rights, they do not affect the court’s jurisdiction to indicate binding interim measures. It makes the point that, when states signed up to the European convention, they expressly accepted that:
“In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide”.
So as not to detain your Lordships from making another trip to increase your steps through the Lobbies this evening, I will not read the whole of the summary. However, I make the point that the UK Government have proactively promoted the binding force of interim measures, advocating that other states, such as Russia, treat them as binding and comply with them. Given the provenance of that advice, I take it—and I hope your Lordships take it—very seriously.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister when he speaks in a moment will explain what this is intended to deal with. It is only specific to these circumstances; is it that a certain number of lawyers are making a certain amount of money and he thinks that that is not helpful to the policy that the Government intend to put forward?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her defence of the rule of law and interim relief in cases involving the alleged expulsion of people to unsafe places. The Government were happy to support the court’s decision not to grant such relief in the current Rwanda cases, but now they want to take away this jurisdiction, forcing more applicants to Strasbourg pending a final UK judicial determination. If the Government are right that Strasbourg interim measures are not binding, Clause 54 is unnecessary. If the European Court of Human Rights is correct that they are binding, our amended Clause 1 should be enough to safeguard international law. With respect to those comments, I urge my noble friend if she is so minded to test the opinion of the House on her Amendment 152, which we would support rather than Amendment 153.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, the Bill establishes a bespoke claims and appeals process which provides for a person subject to the duty to remove to challenge their removal to a safe third country. The duty to remove will be temporarily suspended while consideration is given to any suspensive claim or appeal resulting from the refusal of that suspensive claim. That is of itself an effective remedy for those subject to the duty to remove, and these measures will ensure that all suspensive claims raised in response to a removal notice under the Bill will receive full judicial scrutiny.
Clause 53 is critical to the success of the Bill in preventing the United Kingdom’s domestic courts from granting interim remedies in relation to legal challenges which would prevent or delay the removal of a person who meets the removal conditions under Clause 2. Were other human rights claims and legal challenges to be made, they would be considered after a person has been removed. Clause 53 provides a necessary and effective safeguard against the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that those with no right to be here use to thwart their removal.
Amendment 152 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would incentivise people to obtain injunctions or submit judicial reviews to delay or prevent removal, negating the carefully crafted and balanced provisions we have set out in the Bill, which I have just described. We cannot allow that to happen. The amendment would substantially undermine the Government’s ability promptly to remove those who enter the UK illegally, and our overall objective of stopping the dangerous small-boat crossings.
Amendment 153 similarly seeks to weaken the Bill by striking out Clause 54, which relates to interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights. Let me be clear: it is not the Government’s intention to ignore a Rule 39 interim measure. Indeed, Clause 54 provides a clear framework for a Minister to exercise discretion where a Rule 39 interim measure is indicated. That will mean that a Minister may suspend removal in response to a Rule 39 interim measure but, crucially, is not bound by UK law so to do. This will be dependent on the facts of each case.
As I have said before, the Government take their international obligations very seriously. Nothing in the clause requires the Government to act in breach of international law. I reassure the noble Baroness that reflections within the Strasbourg court are ongoing, and we are closely following the process. We are confident that they will lead to meaningful change.
The inclusion of Clause 54 in the Bill reflects our concerns about the interim measures process. We believe that there needs to be greater transparency and fairness in the process to ensure the proper administration of justice. We cannot allow our ability to control our borders to be undermined by an opaque process which does not give the United Kingdom Government a formal opportunity to make representations or appeal the decision. This process risks derailing our efforts to tackle the people smugglers and stop people from making the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel.
For the reasons I have set out, I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment and, if she is minded to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 152 or 153, I strongly urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am so grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed. I say to all noble Lords that the length of debate does not indicate its importance. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his indication that productive discussions are still in train between His Majesty’s Government and the Strasbourg jurisdiction; I take from that a suggestion to reinforce my suspicion that Clause 54 was always a negotiating position to attempt to improve the due process position in relation to interim measures in the Strasbourg court. On that basis, I want to allow the Government more time to proceed with those negotiations before Third Reading.
However, in relation to Clause 53 and my Amendment 152, on depriving His Majesty’s domestic judges of the inherent jurisdiction to grant interim relief, that jurisdiction does not come from any government or party statute; it comes from the common law. To deprive His Majesty’s judges of the ability to grant interim relief is anathema to our common-law system. With gratitude, again, to all noble Lords who stayed—perhaps even more to those who did not speak than to those who did—I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
“(6) The Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).(7) In Article 14 (decisions about provision of funded services), after paragraph (2A) insert—“(2AA) But paragraph (2A) does not apply to a grant of representation for the purposes of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(8) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (civil legal services: exceptions to excluded services), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal under any of sections 43 to 48 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or under Tribunal Procedure Rules made for the purposes of any of those sections,(id) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act), where the application relates to that Act,”(9) The Civil Legal Services (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 195) are amended in accordance with subsections (10) to (14).(10) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in the definition of “representation (higher courts)”, in paragraph (f), after “2(ib)” insert “, (ic) or (id)”.(11) In regulation 31 (applications for advice and assistance)—(a) in paragraph (1), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (1A) and”,(b) after paragraph (1), insert—“(1A) An application for advice and assistance may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”, and(c) in paragraph (3), after “except where” insert “paragraph (1A),” (12) In regulation 32 (extensions)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (2A)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) No extension shall be required under paragraph (1) if the advice and assistance is advice and assistance mentioned in regulation 4(1)(n) of the Financial Regulations (advice and assistance relating to removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”(13) In regulation 41 (applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (2), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (2A) and”,(b) after paragraph (2), insert—“(2A) An application for a certificate under this Part may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”,(c) in paragraph (3), after “The applicant shall” insert “, except where paragraph (2A) applies,”, and(d) in paragraph (3)(b), after “met” insert “(where they apply)”.(14) In regulation 43 (determination of applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (3)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(3) But paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an application for a certificate in respect of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(15) In regulation 4 of the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 196) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual's financial resources)—(a) in paragraph (1), after sub-paragraph (m) insert—“(n) advice and assistance provided to an individual who has received a removal notice, in relation to the removal notice, and such advice and assistance—(i) includes advice and assistance in relation to a suspensive claim relating to the removal notice, and an application under section 45(4) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as regards such a claim, but(ii) does not include advice and assistance in relation to an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act) relating to the removal notice;(o) representation in respect of—(i) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023), (ii) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(iii) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii).”(b) in paragraph (3), at the appropriate places insert—““removal notice” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”““suspensive claim” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about legal aid in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 55 will ensure that individuals who receive a removal notice under the Bill have access to free legal advice. The clause at present applies only to England and Wales. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, properly asked what the position is regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government advise that legislative provision is not required to ensure persons issued with a removal notice can access free legal advice in Scotland. Legislative changes are required, however, in Northern Ireland. Amendment 154 ensures analogous provision in Northern Ireland to that already applicable to those seeking legal advice in England and Wales. It is simply an extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Bill. That is the content of government Amendment 154. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has an amendment in this group and I defer to him at this point. I beg to move.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is in the same terms as it was in Committee. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for putting their names to this amendment and adding some lustre to it. I am also grateful for a superb briefing note from Bail for Immigration Detainees, ILPA and the Public Law Project.
In my view, ensuring that those who are detained have legal advice at an early stage is of fundamental importance. Obviously and above all, it is important to the detainees themselves, but it is also important to the reputation of our much-vaunted legal system. I ask the House to think about it for a moment: the proposition that, in our country, any person, whether adult, child, pregnant woman or victim of trafficking, can be deprived of their liberty and, at the same time, of proper legal advice is horrific, unconscionable and unconstitutional.
Clause 55 provides for insufficient access to civil legal services. It is concerned with free legal advice and representation only in relation to removal notices. It makes access contingent upon receipt of a removal notice and does not ensure that the necessary services will be made available shortly after a person has been detained. I remind the House that there is no set timeframe in the Bill for the Home Secretary to serve a removal notice under Clause 7. It is therefore not unrealistic to suggest that an individual could be left to linger in detention for days and even weeks before a removal notice is served by the Home Secretary and thus before they are able to access legal aid under Clause 55. Accordingly, the Bill does not provide for people trapped in its provisions assurance of access to free civil legal services before a removal notice has been served on them.
Clause 55 also does nothing to address the reality that it is practically impossible for many people to access legal aid under existing entitlements. There are, as I think the House knows, vast numbers of unrepresented individuals seeking asylum and in detention due to the current unsustainability of and lack of capacity within the immigration and asylum legal aid sector.
Our Amendment 155 introduces a new clause—a duty to make legal aid available to detained persons, which would address this issue in England and Wales by supplementing what the Government intend to achieve in their Clause 55. It would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to detained persons in relation to already in-scope judicial review and immigration matters, and suspensive claims, within 48 hours of their detention. This is crucial, given that the Bill gives the Home Secretary wide powers to detain families indefinitely, to detain children who are alone and to detain vulnerable people such as pregnant women, while also placing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them, with short timeframes to make suspensive claims with compelling evidence to prevent such removal.
I hardly need to remind this House of Parliament that the provision of legal aid is a key component of ensuring the constitutional right of access to justice—itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. Legal aid is essential to ensure that people without means can secure effective access to justice and redress.
So why is this amendment needed? As I think the House knows, legal aid was, in effect, decimated in this area of law by the legal aid cuts of 2013. Most non-asylum immigration matters are excluded, which has damaged the entire immigration and legal aid sector and the ability of everyone, including individuals seeking asylum and those in detention, to access reliable, quality legal aid immigration advice. Immigration law is highly complex and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to navigate without a lawyer.
It is unrealistic to believe that individuals seeking asylum, who have just arrived in the UK and who may be traumatised or vulnerable and who may speak little or no English, can understand our complex laws and make effective representations without professional legal assistance. As stated by Lord Justice Underhill in last week’s decision on the Rwanda scheme, cases where decisions are fair and where there has been no access to legal assistance are “likely to be exceptional”. I pray that in aid of this amendment. Amendment 155 would help to secure timely access to legal assistance, which is crucial to the fairness of decision-making.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who moved this amendment with great skill. I am not going to make a long speech in support of him, because he does not need it. My observation, from refugees and asylum seekers whom I have met in a particular role during the last year, is that many complain that the legal advice they were able to obtain locally, wherever they were placed, was often not accurate, and they had to go through a second round of legal advice.
It is essential that people have access to competent, accurate and correct legal advice, or at least legal advice that might be correct, to enable them to challenge the case made against them. Many of the cohort of people we are talking about are numbed by the experience they have had. They did not expect to be treated as they have been by the United Kingdom. Perhaps, as the Government claim, one might argue that there are some good reasons for their being treated in that way, but to deprive them of the most basic legal advice will cause offence not only to lawyers in your Lordships’ House but to many others.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Ludford has put her name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, which he explained very fully, and these Benches support. One often hears that immigration law is too complex for non-lawyers to understand—I have long held the view that it should not be—but, frankly, it is too complex for many lawyers as well. You need to be a specialist, and that is recognised by the system, but one still hears some horror stories.
The realities of legal advice for anyone in detention in the immigration system have long been bleak. There may be advice sessions but they are 30 minutes long, and it takes a long time for the client to be brought to meet the solicitor, which eats into the 30 minutes. Even with the most articulate client, it can take quite a long time to take instructions. I was a practising solicitor for many years and this cohort, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, consists of individuals whose English may be inadequate. Interpretation is therefore required, which is cumbersome and difficult for everyone. In any event, they have a story that takes support to tell, and that requires a lot in the telling.
Given the relentless speed of the processes under the Bill, this amendment is very necessary. The Government have recognised that legal aid has a place here, given what they have done so far in the Bill and the consultation on the rates. Raising concerns about legal aid became even more relevant with last week’s impact assessment, which drew attention to the problems of accessing legal aid and legal aid services, especially outside London and the south-east. We are very happy to support this amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am a Member of this House whose memory of legal aid probably goes back to before others were here. I was called to the Bar in 1963 and took an active part in legal aid, being not only a recipient of legal aid cases but sitting on legal aid committees. I view it as one of the great social achievements of the Labour Government ending in 1951, and it has been a matter of great sadness that its extent and benefit has been so diminished over the years.
We have here a very important need for legal aid. Most if not all of those needing legal aid will not be able to speak English, will have no knowledge of English law and will be left isolated without that assistance. For that reason, I strongly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Bach—although, most regrettably, he is not putting it to a Division.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think the 1949 measure was a good measure following the Rushcliffe report. It had cross-party support then, and legal aid continues to have cross-party support.
I agree in principle with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that it would be a very good thing for us to be able to revisit the legal aid budget and ensure that many of the cuts, both to scope and to litigants, could be reviewed with a view to being more generous and trying to revisit the consequences of both the 1999 and the 2012 Acts. I am with the noble Lord there.
However, because we have seen such cuts right across the board and a reduction in scope across the board, I have concerns about this particular amendment for these cases unless and until we can grant similar support to many of the cases in this country that are left without support as a result of what has happened over more than 20 years. I know that noble Lords would say that this is a different case, but many of these cases are claims of great merit, but Governments have to make decisions. For my money, I would prefer to have a fair redistribution of the legal aid budget between people who have been cut out of it—many of whom would have been eligible right throughout the 20th century—and other cases that noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for moving government Amendment 154, which, as he said, includes Northern Ireland for the purposes of this Bill.
Regarding my noble friend Lord Bach’s Amendment 155, I agree with every word he has said. He introduced it by saying that legal advice is a fundamental right for the asylum seekers themselves. To address the point the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, made, it is about the way we should see ourselves as a country: making sure that people in the most desperate situation can avail themselves of the right to access our laws. The only way of doing that is with appropriate legal aid. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on the point he made, as well as with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Access to high-quality legal aid within 48 hours would increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the immigration and asylum system. With adequate legal aid, people would be better able to make timely claims, increasing efficiency within the Home Office and the justice system. They would know what evidence they needed to produce and understand their prospects of success to enable them to make an informed decision regarding whether and how to proceed with their claim.
Amendment 155 would build on current legal aid arrangements. I understand that a good precedent for this is the facility for people detained at police stations. When a person is taken to a police station and it is decided that there is no criminal element to their case, they are allowed to access an immigration lawyer to obtain immigration advice. The police call the duty solicitor call centre, and there are lawyers on a duty rota to take up the case, provide immigration advice and decide on the merits of the case. A new 48-hour system would involve allocating a solicitor to an individual upon them entering detention.
For these reasons, I support my noble friend Lord Bach and believe that his amendment is a necessary measure to ensure access to justice for those in the immigration and detention system. I urge the Minister—who has particular expertise, it has to be said, in the field of legal aid in the civil courts—to consider this as favourably as he can. I understand that there is a review under way, but the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Bach goes to the heart of the way that we, as a society, should treat the most vulnerable people when they come to our shores.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, clearly, the Government entirely accept that legal advice is fundamentally important in the present context. That is why we introduced Clause 55. The Government are well aware that, if the procedures for obtaining legal advice under the Bill are not appropriate, legal challenge will follow. That is constraint enough to ensure that those procedures are sufficient to ensure the system works as fairly as possible. That is the approach of the ministry and, as I will say in a moment, that is how we are developing procedures to ensure that appropriate legal advice is available, and why the Government, while entirely understanding the points that have been made, respectfully feel that Amendment 155 is not the correct way to achieve the desired result, which is certainly one that is shared by everyone: that there should be appropriate legal advice.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his comments on the importance of legal advice, and to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for the reservations that she expressed. In the longer run, the whole area of legal advice, not just on immigration, is for review, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just said. The Government regard this as being at the heart of a fair justice system.
However, on this particular amendment, we already have established procedures, both at Manston and immigration removal centres, for individuals to access legal advice. I understand that, at Manston, there is scope for unlimited free phone calls to be made. There are notices and other bits of information about how you contact a lawyer: the names are given and the rotas change. Those procedures are there. Similarly, at immigration removal centres there is already a procedure similar to the police station procedure. It is not exactly the same, but there is the detained duty advice scheme, under which solicitors provides immigration advice on a rota system. That will be expanded as necessary. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, say that people have sometimes been misadvised; I hope that will not happen in the future, because the Ministry of Justice is determined that the system to be introduced will be coherent, joined up and, above all, fair. That is what the House and the country would expect.
We are engaging closely with legal aid providers, and we believe that our proposed capacity-boosting measures will enable us to attract sufficient providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, observed, we are out to consultation on increasing fees for this kind of immigration work. An ongoing Legal Aid Agency tender has been out since March, I think, which I understand has had an encouraging response so far. We are seeing an uptick in providers coming forward. Those procedures remain to be completed and it remains to be seen exactly how that works out, but that is at least encouraging. Other key areas of focus include the provision of remote advice—that might well go some way towards addressing the problems in Lincolnshire, Norwich or wherever it happens to be, but I am given to understand that there will be on-site advice at immigration removal centres—paying for travel times for providers, and various options for signposting and connecting up individuals to ensure that they actually receive appropriate legal advice.
The Ministry of Justice is working very closely with the Home Office on the detail of this. It is a ministerial responsibility to follow closely and ensure that these measures cut the mustard, if I may use that expression, and come up to proof—to mix my metaphors somewhat dramatically. In that regard, and for those reasons, I invite the House to accept that Amendment 155 is not necessary because we are thoroughly on the case and our objective, which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly drew attention to, is shared.
“Duty to make legal aid available to certain detained persons(1) The Lord Chancellor must secure that civil legal services in relation to—(a) a suspensive claim within the meaning of section 37(2) of this Act, and(b) any of the matters set out in paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 31A, 31C, 32 or 32A of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012are made available to any person who is detained under a relevant detention power within 48 hours of the day on which they are first detained under that power.(2) The Lord Chancellor may make such arrangements as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under subsection (1).(3) The duty under subsection (1) is subject to—(a) section 11 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (qualifying for civil legal aid) and any regulations made under that section, and(b) section 21 of that Act (financial resources) and any regulations made under that section.(4) In this section—“civil legal services” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012;“relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16(2) or (2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal),(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation),(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention by Secretary of State), or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to certain detained persons in relation to judicial review and immigration matters within 48 hours of their detention.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, as far as Amendment 155 is concerned, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly short debate. The person who took much the longest was me, and I am not going to make any apology for that because this is an important subject in the context of the Bill.
Still, I thank everyone for their comments, not least the Minister himself, who I personally believe is quite sympathetic to the ideas put forward in this debate. I do not want to embarrass him unduly by going on, but he has been very helpful in discussions outside the Chamber. His contribution today was a little harsher than I had hoped, but we will see what the consultation does. I must say that much more active work will be needed by the department, perhaps over a period of time, before we get to a satisfactory position.
On parallels with other, existing schemes, it is important to realise that, as I understand it, many of them involve half-hour telephone conversations. It will not surprise the House to hear that half-hour telephone conversations are not satisfactory for people who do not speak good English and are perhaps extremely vulnerable at the time. Such conversations are not really enough and, as I say, many of them are on the phone rather than face to face.
Something the Government will have to think about is that the new establishments that we hear will house many of those who are detained, if and when the Bill becomes law, will be quite strange places, such as barges and places like Scampton. Getting legal advice into those places—and face to face is pretty important here —will cause quite a lot of problems for the Government. It will involve extra resource, as I think the Minister understands.
Tempted as I would normally be to test the opinion of the House, I appreciate that we are here pretty late after a full day, and I do not think the House would thank me for dividing it at this stage. That is not to say for a moment that the issues we have been debating for the last few minutes are not crucial to what sort of country we are. Detaining individuals—the state depriving people of their liberty—is an issue that this House has always taken incredibly seriously. Even though I am not going to press the amendment, and while I will not say that I am warning the Minister, he will not be surprised to hear me say that we will be coming back to this issue and watching very closely over the next few months to see how it develops.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 5th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
16:35 - Division on Amendment 156A - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 156A agreed.
16:48 - Division on Amendment 158A - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 178 - Amendment 158A agreed.
18:14 - Division on Amendment 164 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 164 agreed.
19:06 - Division on Amendment 168 - Ayes: 188 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 168 agreed.
20:02 - Division on Amendment 168A - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 131 - Amendment 168A agreed.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment reinstates the right of appeal against age assessments in respect of putative children whom there is a duty to remove under the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 156A and 161. Due to a technicality, Amendments 156 and 157 were not formally withdrawn, but they will be withdrawn, so it is Amendment 156A which is under consideration. I note my interests as a trustee of Reset and with the RAMP project, as laid out in the register.
I thank the usual channels for changing business on Monday so that this item was first today rather than last on Monday. We noted previously that, both during the Nationality and Borders Bill and during this Bill, age assessments have been talked about at 2 am and just after midnight. I am truly grateful to the usual channels for hearing my plea about not being last on the agenda again.
I am grateful also to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Neuberger, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for their support of these amendments. This is not the level of legislative scrutiny—which we should have in Committee—that we owe to children. There were some questions put in Committee to which we did not get full answers, and I hope the Minister might provide them today.
The Bill significantly restricts any legal avenues for challenging an incorrect age determination. The appeal mechanisms instituted by the Nationality and Borders Act, though they have not yet been implemented, will now be disapplied. Following government amendments at this late stage, judicial review will also be limited to such a narrow scope as to make it impossible for a potential child to challenge the assessment of their age based on evidential fact.
All the while, if the Home Office were to inaccurately assess a child to be an adult, the implications would be disastrous and irreversible. A child would face entering an adult system alone, where they would be detained with adults before potentially being removed to a third country with no safeguards in place, perhaps without ever encountering a child protection officer. This is simply absurd, but to remove all legal safeguards and weaken a putative child’s access to justice, when the implications are so grave, is as horrifying as it is immoral.
We must not forget that the Home Office does indeed get age assessments wrong. Based on the Home Office’s own data, we can see that last year nearly two-thirds of all age dispute cases were found to be children. Currently, no method exists that can determine accurately and consistently whether a person is a child; that fact is well acknowledged by the Home Office and is clearly there in the children’s impact assessment that we got yesterday. Therefore, it is understandable that subjective and visual age assessments by immigration officers can lead to inaccurate judgments.
Because of this fact, a potential child must not be disqualified from a judicial review on whether their age decision was wrong on the basis of fact and judicial review must serve as a barrier to a child’s removal. Not to permit the courts to grant relief when the verifiable age of a child is available would allow the Government to proceed with the removal of a child when they know their decision was flawed. Last year, this would have meant over 1,000 unaccompanied children could have been eligible for removal to a third country. A child should not be removed from the UK on such a fallible basis. For the sake of children, this cannot be allowed to stand, and that is reason enough why access to judicial review should be there.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I have been saying—and I hope to reinforce this point—that I have one anxiety. As I understand the amendment, it confines the right of appeal to the grounds set out in Clause 56(5), which exclude an appeal on the basis that there has been a mistake of fact.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I was about to sit down, but I will note that. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which very much follow the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been pointing out, there is a problem about Clause 56(5), to which the right reverend Prelate’s amendment draws attention. As it stands, the subsection restricts the grounds of review to errors of law only. My Amendment 158A seeks to open up the scope for review, following up on a recommendation from the Constitution Committee which pointed out, as the right reverend Prelate has, that the opportunities for error on grounds of fact in this situation are very many. Indeed, the information on which the committee was proceeding was that usually it is on errors of fact that these decisions go wrong.
Amendment 158A rewrites subsection (5) to say that review is available when the decision was either
“wrong in law, or … proceeded on information about the person’s age which was incomplete, misleading or otherwise so seriously misinformed that no reasonable decision-maker would have relied on it”.
I think that the right reverend Prelate would welcome my amendment because it is trying to achieve what he is achieving. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I am worried that, if subsection (5) remains as it is, it will greatly restrict the opportunity for review on grounds of errors of fact.
Although I do not propose to put my amendment to a vote, can the Minister consider very carefully whether the grounds for review that I am suggesting are available? They come very close to what lawyers describe as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. I do not know whether the Minister would accept that what I have in my formulation would be available as a ground of review that the decision was wrong in law anyway because it was so defective, but it is a very important qualification on the absolute precision which subsection (5), as it presently stands, lays down. Without elaborating further, I seek the Minister’s view on what I am proposing. It is important to know exactly to where the phrase “wrong in law” extends.
My Amendment 168AA, which was also discussed in Committee that evening at 1.30 am, is a quite different one, again promoted by a recommendation of the Constitution Committee. It seeks to ask that the power to make regulations under Clause 57(1) regarding the effect of a person’s decision
“not to consent to the use of a specified … method for the purposes of an age assessment … where there are no reasonable grounds”
for doing so should be moved from the position where it is subject to the negative procedure, so that it is subject to the affirmative procedure.
The regulation power in Clause 57(1) does not take the blunt approach of saying that, if somebody refuses to consent, then he should simply be treated as being over the age of 18. Commendably, the clause is phrased as having regard to the circumstances. One can well understand that there could be a variety of circumstances in which a person withholds consent. The problem with leaving the provision as it stands to the negative procedure is that there is no opportunity for considering whether the circumstances are ones that we would wish to accept. Amendment 168AA seeks to add the regulation-making power under Clause 57(1) to the list in Clause 64(4) of those regulations which are to be laid in draft and approved by resolution of each House.
Given the wide scope of the power in Clause 57(1) and its importance to the individual, I suggest that this is a reasonable amendment to make. Although it was not possible for the matter to be debated very fully in Committee at 1.30 am, I hope that the Minister can enlarge on his reply. He replied very briefly then. Before another noble Lord intervened to attract his attention elsewhere, he said that he had noted my amendment and that the Government would “respond before Report stage”. I have had no response so far. Can the Minister consider more carefully my proposal?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for bringing back these amendments. I am also grateful to the Home Office for finally publishing its child rights impact assessment yesterday afternoon although, I must say, getting it has been like pulling teeth.
However, on age assessment and other children’s rights issues, it reads more like an attempt at post hoc justification than a serious analysis of the implications for children’s rights. The initial reaction from the children’s sector is damning. That it continues to use misleading statistics on age assessment that were challenged in Committee is disappointing, to put it mildly.
In Committee, I asked for an explanation of
“why the Government have ignored the very clear advice of their own advisory committee on the question of consent”,
raised by Amendment 161. The Minister’s response was:
“Of course we consider the advice”,—[Official Report, 12/6/23; cols. 1806-16.]
but the fact is that Clause 57 represents a rejection of that advice. Will the Minister explain why, having considered the expert advice, the Government then rejected it? In effect, their approach is that of guilty until proven innocent but, as we have heard, Clause 56 will make proving innocence—or, more accurately, that one is a child—much more difficult than now in what is increasingly a culture of disbelief.
The limitations on appeal and JR rights are, as the JCHR points out and despite what the CRIA says, clearly not in any child’s best interests. Likewise, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern and recommended that age-disputed children should not be removed to a third country. I asked in Committee what the Government’s response is, but received no reply; nor was it explained what steps would be taken to ensure the following, in the words of the supplementary ECHR memorandum, echoed in the CRIA:
“The appropriate support and facilities will need to be in place in the country of removal to ensure that the individual can effectively participate in their judicial review from abroad”.
It is difficult to believe that effective participation would be possible, even with support. We need, at the very least, to know what that support would be. Even if the child managed to challenge the decision successfully from abroad, they could then order only a reassessment. How would that be meaningfully carried out if the child is no longer in the UK? If the child were then reassessed as a child, would they be moved back to the UK?
I have a final question. The Nationality and Borders Act provided for a new statutory right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal to replace judicial review as the means to challenge age assessment under that Act, so that it
“can be resolved as swiftly as possible”
and
“to ensure that genuine children don’t slip through the net and are classed as adults”.
Over a year on, this section has not been commenced. Can the Minister say why and set out the Government’s timetable for doing so, or has it been jettisoned before it has even come into force?
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 156A, although I regret the limited nature of the appeal contemplated by that amendment. I very much welcome Amendment 158A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
As a matter of principle, I am very much in favour of giving individuals the right of appeal although, as I said when I intervened on the right reverend Prelate, I fear that his amendment provides for a more limited right of appeal than I would wish.
A decision on the age of an individual is critical in determining a person’s status under the legislation. I am concerned that, in many instances, the original decision about age will be made in a somewhat perfunctory manner. I imagine that immigration officers may get rather impatient and make rather perfunctory decisions. At the end of the day, age is a matter of evidence and I cannot find any persuasive reason why the original position on age should not be challenged. In my view, the right of appeal should extend to appeals based on the ground that the relevant authority had made a mistake of fact. That is what the noble and learned Lord seeks to achieve in Amendment 158A. However, if I have correctly understood the amendment and its relation to the Bill, the grounds of appeal are limited to those set out in Clause 56(5) of the Bill as it stands. The grounds specified there are essentially judicial review grounds—for example, that there was some procedural unfairness, or the ground of irrationality—and appeals based on fact are expressly excluded. I regard that exclusion as highly regrettable.
To meet some of the anxieties that I fear will be expressed by the Minister regarding my comments and the amendments, I make this point as well: the rights of appeal could be abused, and I would therefore like the burden of establishing the appeal to be on the appellant. It must be for them to satisfy the relevant appellate body that the grounds of appeal are made out. That may in fact be the existing law and practice—it has been such a long time since I practised in that field of law that I simply do not know. If it is not, it should be, and it would meet many of the anxieties likely to be expressed on the government Benches.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I understand very well the child rights impact assessment on this issue. Naturally, the Government are concerned about people’s ability to pretend that they are under age when they are not, but that does not in fact deal with the underlying problem: there are a large number of children from countries outside Europe who mature much more quickly, certainly quicker than children in western Europe.
I remember going on a visit to Safe Passage, which was offering a drop-in centre for young men under 18. A number of those I met, and whom Safe Passage was absolutely satisfied were under 18, had beards or moustaches. If such person is interviewed by the Home Office, will it not immediately assume that a moustache or beard absolutely means that they are over 18? In the case of some of these young people, that will be incorrect.
I also remain very concerned about the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in relation to Clause 5. If the issue is, as I suspect it will be, that they got it wrong, it is not necessarily—or probably not ever—an issue of law but a question of fairness. It is a question of dealing fairly and in the best interests of those who are genuinely under 18.
Reading through the child impact assessment, what depresses me is the suggestion regarding the extent to which the Government are following the principles of the Children Act—which every Government in my lifetime have followed—and looking out for the best interests of children. They are saying it again and again and, quite simply, doing the exact reverse. This is extraordinarily depressing.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, most of what I wished to say has been said by others. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Viscount and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope for what they have said, and I support the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
I will simply say this: it is a matter of fairness. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights remained unconvinced by this approach and believes that any penalisation for refusing to undergo some form of age assessment should be challengeable in the courts, which remains not the case at the moment. Removing a young person’s right of appeal against an age assessment which may have been carried out on appearance only, or by any other means, is, as my noble and learned Friend, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, cruel and demeaning.
It is all the more disgraceful if that young person has been tortured or abused and is terrified of being touched by strangers when there is a scientific assessment. It is all the more disturbing given that the so-called scientific methods for age assessment are widely questioned by the scientific community, especially those who have particular expertise, such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. I chair two hospitals, as noted in my interests set out in the register. I have never met a doctor or any other health professional who supports these so-called scientific age assessment methods, yet I have met several asylum-seeking young people who have been tortured and abused and are terrified of being touched. If they refuse, they can be penalised and treated as adults. This is a matter of fact. Any young person should have the right of appeal.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I note my interests in the register. I shall speak to the amendments in this group proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, because I think they are a package, and we see them as being important together. I believe that age assessment is an art rather than a science, because it is absolutely the case that mistakes can be made and there is no absolutely right way of assessing the age of a person.
I recently had an experience like that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As part of the Learn with the Lords programme, I was talking to group of sixth-formers in a school in England, and one of them had a beard. It was quite surprising but natural. We must not jump to the assumption that if someone has a beard, they are an adult. The rules of this sixth form are that they are allowed to grow their hair longer if they wish to.
I want to look at one area of this work which has not yet been probed by those who have spoken, which is the relationship with other European countries. The Minister repeatedly prays in aid the practice in some European countries, but the European Asylum Support Office, which provides formal guidance for member states of the European Union, has a different view from that which has been expressed by the Minister. Importantly, the safeguards in its guidance contrast with what is in this Bill and what we discovered last night in the child’s rights impact assessment.
Once again I say that the child’s rights impact assessment arrived at virtually the last moment when we are able to discuss anything which impacts unaccompanied children or children in general. It states that,
“until the Home Secretary determines the science and analysis is sufficient to support providing for an automatic assumption of adulthood, which would bring the UK closer to several European countries like Luxembourg and the Netherlands”.
However, the European guidance to all member states says on age assessment:
“In applying benefit of the doubt”—
that is the important phase—
“the applicant shall be considered to be below 18 years and, if unaccompanied, a guardian/representative shall be immediately appointed … The BIC—
best interests of the child—
“shall be observed from this point onwards until conclusive results point out that the applicant is an adult”.
It is evident from this Bill’s Explanatory Notes and the child’s rights impact assessment, which was just received, that this Government do not plan to do either.
The child’s rights impact assessment appeared only in the middle of last night, so it would have been difficult for people to have read it. I shall therefore quote the relevant paragraph. On page 13, it says that:
“The bill includes a regulation making power to make an automatic assumption that a person is an adult if they refuse to undergo scientific methods”—
I repeat, “scientific methods”—
“of age assessment without good reason.”
How does that equate with the guidance to European member states that the benefit of the doubt should be given and the best interests of the child should be provided? It does not. By contrast, the European guidance says on page 42:
“The refusal to undergo the assessment should not imply an automatic consideration of age of majority”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I am sure that everybody wants me to sit down and not speak. I want to make just one point, taking us back to the initial remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham; it is crucial. The Home Office knows that its age assessments are unreliable. It is therefore immoral—I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate use that word—to prevent young people having the right to appeal against those age assessments. It is also immoral to allow a child to be removed from this country while a judicial review of those age assessments is under way. I want us to focus on that point from the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher for her last comments; I am sure all of us agree with them.
I support Amendment 156A in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. It is a very important amendment. Of course, when people come forward with sensible and constructive suggestions which would improve an amendment that has been put forward, I have no problem with that, and I know the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has no problem with that either. In line with the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, were the noble and learned Lord to move Amendment 158A, we would be minded to support that too, because it seeks to improve the Bill in the way that he said. It would be silly not to do so. I thank him for tabling it and hope he will spare me a heart attack from running around to make sure that it is all is in order.
The serious point is that the amendment would improve the Bill. As has been said, rather than restricting this to areas of law only, it opens it up to grounds of fact. It is a much more sensible, improved amendment, and it would be silly not to accept it. We will see what the House has to say should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, be minded to move his amendment after Amendment 156A.
Nobody doubts the difficulties that can arise in respect of age assessments, particularly as many of the disputes for unaccompanied children arise around the claimed age of 16 or 17. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 had relevant provisions, but those have been superseded by the Illegal Migration Bill. The Bill specifically allows for an individual, where there is a disputed age assessment, to be removed—in other words, an individual’s challenge to a decision by way of judicial review is non-suspensive. Amendment 156A, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and others, seeks to address that injustice.
The Government will quote evidence saying that large numbers of individuals claiming to be children are not, and that the system is open to abuse. I point out that in the JCHR report the Helen Bamber Foundation states that, in 2022, 70 local authorities had 1,386 referrals to their children’s services of young people sent to adult accommodation or detention, but 63% were then found to be children. It is therefore deeply concerning that judicial oversight of these decisions is being ousted, and that they will then be removed from the UK while decisions are confirmed or not. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, says, how can that possibly be in the best interests of the child—something that has driven public policy in this country for decades?
Others have raised the child’s rights impact assessment. Since we got it only at 5 pm yesterday, it has been difficult to go through it, so I apologise for asking questions that would really be more appropriate in Committee. On the deportation of children—were the Bill to go through unamended—it may interest noble Lords for the Minister to explain why there has been a change of public policy with respect to the use of reasonable force. On the use of force by the Home Office under the Bill, page 4 of the impact assessment says:
“While this is technically not age restricted, use of force against minors is not permitted under current policy except where in the rare circumstances there is a risk of harm”.
I think we all accept that; if a child is going to hurt themselves, you necessarily expect someone to try to intervene in that circumstance. It goes on to say:
“Use of force is not currently used against minors for compliance/removal purposes. We do not envisage the use of reasonable force being used for such purposes under the auspices of the new bill”—
this is the important phrase—
“unless it is necessary as a last resort where other methods to ensure compliance have failed”.
That is a major change of public policy, included in a document that we are being asked to consider at the last stages of Report. The Government are saying that reasonable force can be used in the deportation and removal of children under the auspices of the Bill, rather than it just being used in the circumstances of preventing harm. Nobody would disagree that if you are preventing a child hurting themselves, of course you have to use force and intervene appropriately, but this does not say that. I repeat: it says
“as a last resort where other methods to ensure compliance have failed”.
The House deserves an explanation of why the Government not only have changed public policy with respect to the lack of judicial oversight of age assessment but are now proposing, to ensure that children can be removed under the Bill, to allow reasonable force to be used.
I will not do this but, if this were Committee, noble Lords can imagine all the questions we would ask about training, about what “reasonable force” means and so on. That is not available to us, which makes it even more important that we support the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—with the improvement suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, if he moves his amendment as well—to protect children, some of the most vulnerable people who come to our shores.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments take us on to the provisions regarding age assessments. Given that, under Clause 3, unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults, and given the obvious safeguarding risks of adults purporting to be children being placed within the care system, it is important that we take steps to deter adults from claiming to be children and to avoid lengthy legal challenges to age-assessment decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. Receiving care and services reserved for children also incurs costs and reduces the accessibility of these services for genuine children who need them.
Assessing age is inherently difficult, but it is crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children. Our published data shows that, between 2016 and March 2023, there were 8,611 asylum cases in which an age assessment was required and subsequently resolved. Of those cases, nearly half— 47%, or 4,088 individuals—were found to be adults. This percentage aggregates initial decisions on age taken upon arrival, comprehensive assessments and the outcomes of legal challenges. I make clear that only those assessed to be adults will fall within the duty.
Accordingly, Clause 56 disapplies the right of appeal for age assessments, which is yet to be commenced and was established in Section 54 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, for those who meet the four conditions in the Bill. Instead, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, which will not suspend removal, and can continue from outside the UK after they have been removed. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I say that we are keeping the commencement of Section 54 under review, but I am unable to provide a further update at this stage.
Clause 56(5) provides the basis on which a court can consider a decision relating to a person’s age in judicial review proceedings. It provides that a court can grant relief
“only on the basis that it was wrong in law”,
and must not do so on the basis that it
“was wrong as a matter of fact”.
This distinguishes the position that the Supreme Court adopted in its judgment in the 2009 case of the Crown on the application of A v London Borough of Croydon, page eight. The intention is to ensure that the court cannot make its own determination on age—which should properly be reserved for those qualified and trained to assess age—but instead can consider a decision on age only on conventional judicial review principles.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The court will receive evidence from people who have made these assessments, and courts are well versed in determining which evidence is to be preferred.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As my noble friend well knows, under a conventional judicial review challenge, the court will review the process of the decision and whether the decisions made were appropriate, applying the conventional judicial review tests, not balancing the evidence and coming to its own conclusion on the facts. The Government’s position is that it is appropriate for those tasked with assessing a person’s age to be entrusted with that responsibility, subject to review on judicial review principles. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, this includes a test of Wednesbury unreasonableness—a decision so unreasonable that no properly directed tribunal could have reached it.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I want to be absolutely clear: is the Minister accepting my amendment? I have drafted it as carefully as I can to bring it within the scope of that kind of challenge.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am coming to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and will answer that question in a second.
We consider that these provisions are entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system by purporting to be adults. It follows that I am afraid I cannot support Amendments 156A and 158A. However, I assure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that age assessments will, as now, be undertaken in a careful and professional manner. This is not a perfunctory exercise, and it is in everyone’s interests that we get it right.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for his careful response. First, I note his comments, and accept his points, on Amendment 161. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for spotting a weakness in my amendment. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, helps enormously, so if he were to test the opinion of the House, I would support him.
The Minister, yet again, has told us that 47% were found to be adults but failed to tell us that some of those supposed adults, when they went to local authorities, were subsequently found to be children, not adults. So it is not 47% who were finally found to be adults; it is less than that.
I am worried, even if we took the 47%, about the 53% of children who could find themselves in adult accommodation and at greater risk. That is my fear; I put the child first. There is a balance here, Minister— I absolutely accept that—but many of us go a different way. I am not content with what he has said and I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 156A. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 156.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 156A is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 157 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 156A
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(2) Subsection (5) applies if P makes an application for judicial review of—(a) the decision mentioned in subsection (1), or(b) any decision to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom under this Act which is taken on the basis of that decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reinstates the right of appeal against age assessments in respect of putative children whom there is a duty to remove under the Bill, and removes a provision that would prevent a judicial review challenge to an age assessment from serving as a barrier to the putative child's removal from the UK.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confirms that, on an application for judicial review of a decision mentioned in Clause 56(3), the court or tribunal must treat a person’s age as a matter of fact to be determined by the relevant authority.
Lord Hope of Craighead
(a) was wrong in law, or(b) proceeded on information about the person’s age which was incomplete, misleading or otherwise so seriously misinformed that no reasonable decision-maker would have relied on it.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, my amendment is really part of a package, and it is very important that the formula which I have set out in it should be put on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I cannot call Amendments 159 and 160 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, the second amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 63, line 1 and the amendments in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 63, line 2 and page 63, line 25 replace the requirement to consult such representatives of district councils in Northern Ireland as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate about regulations under Clause 59(1) with a requirement to consult the Executive Office in Northern Ireland.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am to be brief in setting out the government amendments in this group. As the House will recall, Clause 59 provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying the maximum number of persons who may enter the UK annually using safe and legal routes. Such regulations must be debated and approved by Parliament. Before making such regulations, the Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of local authorities and such other persons or bodies as they consider appropriate. The intention is that the annual cap reflects the country’s capacity to accommodate, integrate and otherwise support those admitted through safe and legal routes.
Local authorities in Northern Ireland do not have the same remit as those in England and Wales and Scotland. In the context of migration, the relevant functions rest with the Northern Ireland departments. Following discussions with the Executive Office in Northern Ireland, Amendments 161A, 161B, 161C and 162A replace the requirement to consult representatives of local authorities in Northern Ireland with a requirement to consult the Executive Office. The Executive Office will then consult other Northern Ireland departments to inform the response to the Secretary of State.
I will respond to the other amendments in this group once we have had an opportunity to hear from other noble Lords. For now, I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I again note my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 162. In Committee, I explained the well-intentioned nature of this amendment and hoped it would have afforded the Minister the opportunity to clarify that any cap placed on safe and legal routes would exclude current named schemes already in operation. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. He said:
“The cap will not automatically apply to all current and new safe and legal routes that we offer or will introduce in the future.”—[Official Report, 4/6/23; col. 1980.]
But, with respect, how can local authorities reflect on accommodation provision for new routes without excluding their current commitments from this assessment?
“Safe and legal routes” is not a term that is tightly defined in the Bill, so we are left, as is now unfortunately commonplace, with regulations in this area. Arguably, however, it is not unreasonable for Members to presume that “safe and legal routes” would be for those seeking protection outside existing visa schemes who would be granted refugee status. Therefore, why are the Government leaving the possibility that those who are not granted refugee status could be included within the cap? This applies to schemes such as Homes for Ukraine, which requires a visa—the people in question are not refugees—Hong Kong BNO visas, which are actually for overseas citizens, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which is in recognition of all that happened in Afghanistan. As my noble friend Lady Brinton put it to the Minister in Committee, those from Hong Kong are actually British citizens. I thank the Minister for the meeting that he held with me and her on that specific question.
We still have no credible evidence on the deterrence impacts of this Bill, but we know that offering accessible and safe routes will help prevent people having to make the agonising decision to travel irregularly to reach sanctuary. However, by including current schemes in the proposed cap, we will severely restrict our ability to implement any such safe routes, as there would be limited room, if any, for additional routes. Over the first quarter of this year, 22,000 Ukrainians and British nationals from Hong Kong were resettled here. If we had a cap of 20,000 and those 22,000 were included, we would have a problem. It is to the Government’s credit that these 22,000 have come, but it cannot be used as a justification to abdicate our responsibility to do more across a wider global cohort.
If we do not provide safe routes to those who have had no choice but to uproot their lives to seek safety, we are choosing to require them to rely on dangerous journeys. Perversely, this will create a market for those smugglers determined to capitalise on others’ suffering.
The child’s rights impact assessment states:
“Anybody arriving in the UK through the methods specified in the bill presents a risk to the public due to the very nature of their arrival”.
I put it to the Minister that the vast majority do not pose a risk to our country; what is at risk is their lives. That is why they have fled. I therefore welcome that the Prime Minister has promised that the Government will create more safe and legal routes. This amendment will enable the Government to do only what they have set out to do. Without it, I fear this vital and necessary work will stop before it has even started and the world’s most vulnerable will pay the price.
I wonder whether using the word “person” in Clause 59(1) is unhelpful here and whether it should say “asylum seeker and refugee” instead. Would the Minister consider bringing that back at Third Reading? Beyond Amendment 162, I support the other safe and legal routes proposed here, in particular that in Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for adding their names to my Amendment 164. I also lend my support to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 162, which he has just outlined, and to Amendment 163 in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton.
I brought a variation of this amendment to the House in Committee. As I said in that debate, it is very simple. Amendment 164 is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what they say they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. As I said in that debate, the moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the creation of more safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are creating legal and safe routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission which this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.
In the previous debate, the Minister said that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and to implement them “as soon as practicable” and
“in any event by the end of 2024”.—[Official Report, 14/6/23; col. 1982.]
I am grateful to him for making this commitment. My primary motive in bringing this amendment back is to ensure that this commitment from the Government is enacted and that the commitment made from the Dispatch Box to enact safe and legal routes is in the Bill and carries as much weight as the commitment to disestablish unsafe and illegal routes.
I have heard commitments to policy positions from the Dispatch Box which have not been fulfilled and, while I have the greatest respect for the Minister, legislative certainty is what this House needs. I am particularly concerned by the promises made about the establishment of safe and legal routes at an indeterminate point after the next general election.
This brings me to the timeframe which has been introduced to this revised version of the amendment. We have chosen the timeline of two months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for two reasons. First, this will be eight months— I repeat, eight months—after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal. Secondly, it will ensure that the commitment, as set out in legislation, should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. If the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline into the legislation, I would welcome that conversation, but we do need to put the duty into the legislation now.
I was grateful for a conversation with the Immigration Minister in the other place, when he assured me that the Government would consider the importance of clearly demonstrating that they are committed to fulfilling their word on safe and legal routes. To restate: this is something the Government actively want to do, and for that reason I will want to test the will of the House this afternoon.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and to endorse everything she has just said; if she does decide to test the opinion of the House, I certainly will support her in the Lobbies. I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in his Amendment 162, and Amendment 165, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and Amendment 166, in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
My own Amendment 163 takes me back to an issue I raised in Committee. It concerns the provision within the designated safe and legal route, which I warmly welcome and I applaud what the Prime Minister said about the principle of doing this. The amendment contains within it an element and a number, to be determined by the Secretary of State, for people with protected characteristics under Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, who is in his place, will recall that I raised this issue on an earlier amendment on Report.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for signing this amendment. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. A few moments ago I heard him say that there will be a consultation process; perhaps he could flesh that out and say even that the principle in this amendment is something that could be consulted on—that would go some way to meeting my concerns.
I have raised this issue a number of times previously. I tabled an amendment to the Immigration Bill, debated in your Lordships’ House on 21 March 2016, which specifically focused on those groups of people, such as the Yazidis and Christians, persecuted and even facing genocide because of their religion or belief. I raised it again during the Nationality and Borders Bill, debated on 8 February 2022. I focused on the Yazidis, an ethno- religious group targeted by Daesh for annihilation as a clear-cut case of genocide.
Earlier this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I held a meeting with officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the continued failure of the United Kingdom to respond to the genocide of the Yazidis, even though a German court has now determined that such crimes have been committed against the Yazidis. I visited northern Iraq in 2019 and took evidence from the groups I have just described. Germany, along with Canada and Australia, famously opened its doors to the victims of this genocide, offering them sanctuary and a safe haven. By contrast, we have used the absence of safe and legal routes to prevent these vulnerable and targeted communities being able to find a way of accessing refugee or asylum status in the UK.
If our present mechanisms are working as intended, why have Yazidi victims of the Daesh genocide in Iraq not been granted resettlement in the UK? Of course, we may not be able to help all victims but why can we not help a few? This is unacceptable, which is why I have tabled this amendment.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He makes his case very well. I also share the views of my noble friend Lord Paddick in his discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the preference is to get to a place where we can have a broader view. That is where my Amendment 165 is trying to land us—so that we can have a means by which those who seek asylum can have a safe and legal route which is not country-specific. I will return to that in a moment.
I was pleased to listen very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, making her case. I hope that the Minister reflects very carefully on what was presented to him in very measured terms. The currency of commitments by Ministers at the Dispatch Box is not as it was. Therefore, if the noble Baroness presses this amendment to the vote, these Benches will support her. We need in this Bill a commitment that there will be safe and legal routes, so it will be very important.
Before I turn to Amendment 165, I will speak briefly to Amendment 167 on family pathways, tabled by my noble friend Lady Ludford, who cannot be here today. This is another area where the absence of a pathway for family reunion has a perverse incentive that draws people towards smuggling and therefore the dangerous channel crossings, as well as preventing the accelerating of integration in the UK of those family members. Refugee family reunion is particularly important for women and children, who make up 90% of those who are granted visas. The damage that this Bill will do is substantive. I hope that the Minister can reflect on that point and give a proper response.
Amendment 165 is a version of an amendment that I tabled in Committee. The Minister challenged me to try to present some figures on its impact. I told him that I would be able to present an estimate of its impact, after reflecting on the Government’s impact assessment. This impact assessment has been debated a lot since we were given sight of it—including the boxes for government estimates of costs that remain blank. But one thing that is certain, and which I can say with assurance, is that the protected claim route for a safe and legal route under this amendment would be cheaper to the British taxpayer than the costs of detention and removal detailed in the impact assessment. Indeed, as the children’s impact assessment said, a safe and legal route would be a means by which we would have an effective way of protecting children.
There can now be no doubt that the route the Government are seeking to go down in the Bill is the most expensive for the taxpayer. We have to find ways to have a safe and legal route that is not country specific and that has considerable thresholds and conditions, high enough not to need a quota but sufficient to allow those under the greatest level of persecution to secure access and a route for a protected claim to the UK. Of course, the critical aspect is that that would be valid only if there is consideration of it being a successful cause. That is possible and the costs would be lower.
I hope the Minister can also give positive news on what the Government expect a safe and legal route that is not country specific to be. In Committee, I asked the Minister about the status of what we have at the moment, which is a safe and legal route that is not country specific—the UK resettlement scheme through the UNHCR. I do not need to remind the House that that scheme is demand led and operates on the basis of information provided by local authorities, acting in isolation or in a regional group and stating that they can accommodate and resettle those who are seeking asylum via the UNHCR. That is the existing means; it is problematic and expensive, and my amendment seeks to improve it.
The major deficiency at the moment is what the Independent Commission for Aid Impact said in its review of the Government’s use of overseas development assistance funding for the UK resettlement scheme: the UK Government asked the UNHCR not to make any referrals to the UK unless they were from Afghanistan. I have asked the Minister twice now—I did again in Committee—whether this was the case. The Minister replied:
“I do not have that detail to hand so I will go away and find that out and write to the noble Lord”.—[Official Report, 14/6/23; col. 1981.]
If the theme is taking Ministers at the Dispatch Box at their word, presumably the Minister went away and found out whether that was the case. He has not written to me, so I expect the answer when he winds up on this group today. He really needs to tell us, given that he told me that he would in Committee. That is on the record in Hansard, so I look forward to the Minister stating whether that is the case.
The other aspect on which we need clarity is that the Minister has said that any new safe and legal route will depend on the capacity in local authorities. That capacity is both demand led and need led. Local authorities can offer space for the UK resettlement scheme through individual councils or strategic migration partnerships, so the Home Office must have a current estimate of the level of capacity of local authorities through the strategic migration partnerships receiving through the UK resettlement scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
The second is that the Home Office provides tariff funding for local authorities, either individually or as a group, for those being resettled. My concern with the government proposal, and why we need clarity in the Bill, is that the Government could state that there is no capacity in local authorities, not because a local authority has said that it does not have capacity but because the Government have reduced its tariff funding. So they can flick the switch: they can state there is no capacity because they are unwilling to give a tariff support.
As we know, at the moment, community sponsorship is part of the UK resettlement scheme. The Government consider it a safe and legal route, and we have seen it so wonderfully in the Ukrainian scheme. But the Government seem very loath to test the community sponsorship scheme for other people who are seeking asylum. I am certain that it would not be easy and that there would be consequences. But if those in this country of ours were asked in a community sponsorship scheme for young people who are potentially at direct risk in Iran and Sudan, and if they met certain thresholds and the scheme could operate a protective claiming element to them, I am certain we would be able to find the capacity that we needed.
Finally, with all the Government’s assurances, we see the deficiencies in their current approach in live time. Judicial review is about to start in Northern Ireland on the Government’s evacuation from Sudan. I declare the interest of my activities within Sudan and the civilian community there. The review is asking why the Government have provided support for those from Ukraine but is refusing it for those from Sudan on exactly the same basis. I am afraid that we cannot rely on this Government to have individual schemes. Therefore, we need safe and legal routes and a commitment in the Bill. We cannot simply take the commitments from the Dispatch Box. This needs to be in law.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 164. I will speak strongly but briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Stroud. I spoke to this matter in Committee. What a disappointment it is that the Government and many of their spokesmen have made it perfectly plain that they are going to introduce safe and legal routes but, as others have said, without any clarity at all as to what they mean. Indeed, I have been saddened to hear a number of people in the other place confusing a safe and legal route with a programme of the United Nations, which is a separate matter altogether, aimed at specific countries in the world.
As I previously stated, I was responsible as a Minister for the United Nations Bosnian refugee settlement scheme in the 1990s. This country can be very proud of that scheme, but it was organised very much internationally and we played a noble part. If the Minister is mixing it up—I do not think that he is—or if the Government are, and thinking that these schemes will satisfy this particular area, they are mistaken.
I also put it very quickly to my noble friend that, prior to 2011, and certainly in the time that I was Minister, we had at our embassies and consulates around the world provision for dealing with applications for asylum to this country. This spread out the ability to grant asylum very widely. In view of the fact that there are so many countries of the world that claim to be freedom-loving and democratic but where individuals and groups of people have prejudice shown against them, would it not be sensible—and take the pressure off the masses who might arrive in the channel, for instance—if we were to have a much wider approach restored in our representations around the world, as we used to have?
I ask my noble friend this in all seriousness because, although we are not specifically requesting it in this amendment, I think it would satisfy us if the Government were to agree to that or at least to look at it again. It would save considerable resources and go some way to restoring the Government’s credibility in relation to the Bill where, I am afraid, despite many wise and sensible suggestions by this House, the Government seem outrageously unable to accept anything that we are suggesting. So I put it to my noble friend: please let us look at this again and, in the meantime, please make sure that Amendment 164 is accepted by the Government, in view of the fact that they have spoken so strongly in favour of it in other places.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he introduced the government amendments to Clause 59, but I am sorry that they were limited in scope. When we had an exchange in Committee and I argued that the revision of the cap should take account of exogenous as well as endogenous factors, he told me that he thought he and I were not far apart. The cap level should not be determined simply by consultation with local authorities. It should take some account of famine, war, massacre, earthquake and natural disasters abroad, which are what tend to encourage the demand for asylum. He told me he did not think we were far apart and agreed to look at it, but I see no amendment. I regret that, but I guess that is where we are.
I support Amendment 163 and I particularly support Amendment 164, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I congratulate her, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on their courage in coming forward with such a sensible amendment.
Clause 60, which the Government have put in the Bill, is welcome, but the report it foresees is a purely descriptive document. It is not prescriptive. Amendment 164 calls for a further report which will be more purposive. The amendment is however quite modest; it does not attempt to point to any particular type of safe and regular route which the Government should explore. It does not suggest we take up the French offer of a processing centre in France, although for the life of me I do not know why we do not. It does not suggest we reconsider what seems to be a systematic reduction now going on in the number of family reunion cases we are allowing. It does not consider —this would fall foul of the ruling of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope—that we should change our advice to UNHCR on the number and types of resettlement cases that we will be prepared to take.
About 5,000 people from Iran who came into this country in 2022. It is an astonishing fact that 5,642 arrived by irregular routes and 10 by the regular resettlement route. That seems absurd and can be only on the basis of instructions to keep the flow to a minimum. The amendment does not suggest that we sift new applications for asylum in the same sensible way that the Home Office is now sifting those already in the queue from people who are here, waiting to have their case heard. There is no reason why a similar sift should not be conducted remotely.
If you are a young woman who has demonstrated in Tehran and is now on the run, and wanted by the authorities, there is no remote way in which you can register your wish for sanctuary in this country. We allow remote access to people who want to get into our immigration system, but we do not allow remote access to our asylum system. If you are safe where you are but simply want to live and work here, you may apply remotely on the internet or via diplomatic representation, although the internet is the more likely route. But if your life is at risk, if you are on the run, if you are in Kabul or Khartoum and you are wanted, if you are starving or if your tribe is being massacred, we will not consider your case for asylum in this country, unless you get here directly by some route that does not exist. That seems to me shaming. We cannot put that on our statute book; if we have to do so, let us at least add Amendment 164.
It is hypocrisy to pretend that the aim of the Bill is to stop the small boats. The most obvious way of stopping the small boats is to open new, regular routes. If we can do it for immigrants, by sifting their applications remotely, why can we not do it for asylum seekers? To refuse to do it for those fleeing for their lives—to refuse them even the possibility of applying for sanctuary here—seems a bit immoral, a bit illegal under international law, a bit hypocritical and entirely ineffectual, because it will keep the small boat men in business. I strongly support Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said and I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. During last year and this year, one of the criticisms we have heard in this House of the small boats and those coming across has been that they should have taken safe and legal routes; but as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has demonstrated extremely clearly, there are absolutely no safe and legal routes at the moment, unless you go through UNHCR. For people like the woman fleeing Tehran, whose case was given as an example by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, there is no way she could get here.
If I may respectfully say so, it is hypocritical of the Government to suggest that there are routes that could have been taken to avoid taking the small boats. I deplore the small boats. I do not want to see any more of them. The dangers are appalling and I recognise the problems that the Government have but, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, they need to provide safe routes. To suggest that these may be ready by the end of 2024 seems a nonsense; we need them now. If we are to get rid of the boats, we absolutely must have well-known, safe routes from somewhere in Europe.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, we have just had mention made of the young woman from Tehran. I have been in touch with that young woman; in fact, there are more than one of them. Some of your Lordships may have seen the BBC programme last week, which showed the amount of footage that was recorded on cell phones of what happened when the young woman Mahsa Amini was taken into custody because she had her scarf on in an inappropriate way. She ended up in a coma, and then dead. Two young women journalists had got into the hospital and photographed her in that coma, then photographed her family being told that she was dead. Photographs were seen in that programme of her beaten body, her face obviously pulverised by blows. In the days immediately afterwards those two journalists knew that, once they had published their film footage, they would be at risk of arrest—and there was no way that we could get them out. Contact was made, but there was no way.
A few months ago I spoke to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who is always so sympathetic to these positions. Turkey is one of the obvious places that people can flee to, but it is not a safe place for Iranian women; we have seen returns of people to Iran. The question was: if they got to Turkey, could they go into the British embassy, ask for a visa and be given sanctuary and help to get out? The noble Lord had to come back to me and say no, that would not be an acceptable way of dealing with this.
So what is the mechanism for journalists like that, who are in imminent danger? Those two women journalists are now serving six years apiece. They were put on trial, were not allowed to have lawyers and are now serving sentences in jail. That is why I tabled an amendment to the Bill suggesting that there should be emergency visas so that people in imminent danger can do something to get out.
That usually means journalists. I have personal experience of sitting in this country with Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist who had written about Putin and his conduct. She went back to Russia, and three weeks later I saw her body on the stairwell of the building she lived in, with blood pouring down the stairs because she had been shot. These are real events in the lives of people who are being courageous in calling out the abuses of Governments, yet there is no way that we can help them to escape.
It is not only journalists. The lawyer acting for Navalny, the opposition leader who was making a stand against Putin, was immediately arrested. There ought to be ways in which we can provide emergency visas for people to get out. In 2019 the Government announced:
“A new process for emergency resettlement will also be developed, allowing the UK to respond quickly to instances when there is a heightened need for protection”,
and that is what we were calling for. Four years later, that still has not happened.
In 2021, in the months immediately after the military evacuation of Afghanistan, I was directly involved in trying to get judges, particularly women judges, out of that country. We managed to evacuate 103 women judges and their families, but only a small number of them were taken in by Britain. At that stage I delivered a petition to No. 10, signed by tens of parliamentarians, lawyers and human rights experts, calling on Her Majesty’s Government to introduce as a matter of urgency emergency visas for the remaining women judges, women television presenters and women Members of Parliament who had not managed to get out. I did not hear a dicky bird. I did not even get a reply to the petition; I am sure that Mr Johnson took it with him into retirement.
We now have the embarrassment that Canada has created emergency human rights defender visas, as has Ireland. The Czech Republic recently did so too, at the behest of the great project that this country was at the heart of creating, the Media Freedom Coalition. We advised that there should be emergency visas for journalists and were persuading the world to create them. The Czech Republic did so, and it now has a huge number of the journalists who had to flee Russia. Do we have many of them?
I too will support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. I will not ask for a vote on mine because we are in a bit of a hurry but, if we accept the very sensible amendment to create emergency visas and new routes for people, I call on the Government to include the ones that will be necessary where people’s lives are in imminent danger, as we have seen in a number of conflicts recently.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the House will know that I support the direction of travel of the Bill. I have therefore listened with particular care to the heartfelt, heart-rending speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, but the House and indeed the country are entitled to know, broadly, the scale of the commitment that we would be asked to accept if all these amendments were passed.
Therefore, I will detain the House for a minute or two, particularly in relation to the background to Amendments 162 and 164. I accept that the phrase “safe and legal routes” has a seductive ring to it, because it makes it sound as though we can square an extraordinarily difficult circle. But in the end it comes down to numbers, and in Amendment 164 I see no mention of a cap or limit on the numbers—I stand ready to be corrected.
I heard my noble friend Lady Stroud refer to the Minister’s reference to caps for local authorities but, if she argues that this is one way for us to get around and break the business model of the boat smugglers, I ask her: what happens when we fill up to the cap that my noble friend the Minister will have devised? Will the people smugglers not reappear immediately? In relation to my noble friend Lady Stroud’s proposed subsection (3), on the procedures to be used and who will undertake them, there is a great deal of open-ended difficulty, not least around the sort of issues we discussed a few minutes ago about the definition of “children”—this will be about the definition of a “relevant person”.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that we are talking about admission to the system, or admissible cases? We are not saying that all applicants’ asylum requests must be granted; we are talking merely about admissions into the system. I have not heard the noble Lord answer my argument for remote admissions.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The issue with remote admissions is that you completely lose control of the system, because it is run on a multibased system around the world. We need, quite simply, to be clear about the number we could admit into this country, under all these worthwhile systems—they may be run in the way the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, wishes, or the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wishes—and keep faith with the country’s ability to absorb it without undue social and economic strain.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 163, which specifically deals with numbers and a cap, and the regulations that would be available to the Secretary of State to control the very issues that the noble Lord raised. It would allow us to deal with emergency cases of the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and others described.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Absolutely—that is why, in my opening remarks, I said that the noble Lord’s Amendment 163 was movingly produced and discussed. My question on the cap was aimed at Amendment 164, which I stand ready to be corrected on, and the generality of Amendment 162, where no numbers are mentioned at all.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
It may be helpful, therefore, to clarify what is happening in Amendment 164. In January, the Government will lay a report detailing the safe and legal routes that they are choosing to introduce. The amendment says that, two months later, the Government have a duty to implement what they say they want. The amendment makes no mention of numbers and does not throw open the door at all; it purely says that, if the Government have a narrative of instituting safe and legal routes, they have the responsibility and duty to implement them. They must safeguard the passage of the Bill not just by narrative but by action.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I support the idea of safe and legal routes, which are already in the Bill, but there is no way that they will stop the boats. I have several questions for those proposing these amendments. Would they give safe and legal routes to people already in safe neighbouring countries in Europe, such as France? If not, it will do little or nothing to stop the boats coming from France. If we do not give them safe routes, they will continue to come as they do at present. If we decide to give safe and legal routes to people already in safe countries in Europe, I suggest that that should not be our priority. Our priority should be helping the young lady in Tehran and the people coming directly from persecution, or from immediately neighbouring countries, rather than from already safe countries.
My next question is: will the UK bear the costs of assessment, accommodation and litigation, through all the appeal stages we allow here, to those applying overseas? If so, those costs can be huge. I again suggest that that money would be better used helping people languishing in refugee camps in the Middle East, where we can help many times more people for the same amount of money than if we bring them to this country.
My third question is: will there be a cap on the safe and legal routes? There is a cap in the Government’s Bill, but there certainly is not in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. If there is a cap, anyone applying above the number of the cap is not prevented from coming by small boat across the channel. So it is a deliberately misleading fallacy to suggest that safe and legal routes will stop the passage across the channel if there is a cap.
I will also address the bishops’ letter in the Times and the most reverend Primate’s promises in previous debates that he was going to bring forward practical measures to solve the problem, while accepting that we could not take unlimited numbers of people. In fact, in that letter and in the amendments that he has put forward, he has not come forward with a policy; he has come forward with a policy to have a policy. It is not—
Lord Lilley (Con)
May I just continue and then perhaps the most reverend Primate can ask three questions in one go?
It is a policy to have a policy. It is not even a policy for him to have a policy; it is a policy for the Government to have a policy. It is a policy that the Government’s policy must be agreed by other Governments overseas. I give way to the most reverend Primate.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
If the noble Lord would wait for a second, I would be able to respond. If he were to look at the debate on Friday 9 December, which I led, he will find that a policy is set out there very clearly. One has also been set out very clearly in an article in the Times a few weeks ago, which has been repeated on numerous occasions by other Members of these Benches.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I have reread the debate on 9 December and he does not give a policy in it. I ask him to reread it himself, come back to the House and tell us what that policy is. Because it is not there; it is a non-policy. His policy for other people to have policies is not a policy.
Lord Lilley (Con)
There are no rules of order in this House.
I therefore hope that we will stop the pretence that there is a simple means of stopping the flow of refugees across the channel, risking their lives—and, once here, inevitably being removed—other than the policy of deterrence or prevention.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, it has certainly been quite a debate, has it not? I agree strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley. It gives me difficulty and regret not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, who are clearly striving to help people who really need help.
The question here is whether this bit of law will help or not, and I suggest to the House that that is not relevant to the actual problem on the ground of dealing with a very wide range of cases. I have been in a number of difficult countries and I can assure noble Lords that lots of people live in real difficulty and fear and would well want, and be justified in seeking, to move to the UK, especially if they had friends or relatives here. However, it seems to me that what we have here is not so much a problem of law as a problem of policy; we need to be much clearer on what we are trying to achieve and how we will achieve it.
For example, where will applications be submitted? You could do it on the internet, but the other stages that would then have to be dealt with could not be done satisfactorily on the internet. It could be done by the embassies overseas; there was some ability to do that in the past. However, the numbers are now astronomical—tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe more—and there is no way that an embassy could do that. Even if it could, the host country would say, “All right, you deal with them in your embassy—you can have a special office, if you like—but on the condition that, if you fail an applicant, you then deal with the consequences”. Of course, you would be left with huge numbers of people who we had judged were not sufficiently strong cases; they would be there in country X but they would be our responsibility.
Then there will be the question—I will be very brief—of where and how the interview process will be conducted. How would the claims be prioritised? What would happen to those whose claims fail? These questions have been completely unconsidered. We should not be passing laws and letting the thinking be done later.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Well, that is what this amounts to.
Let the Government come forward with a viable scheme—they have promised to do so—and let us then support that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I understand the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Lilley and others, but I also agree that there is no simple solution to all this, which is why we have to look at little bits of the system to understand whether there is an overall system that we can tackle.
I will start with some high-level things that we should be proud of. We should be proud that people want to come to Britain, either as refugees or economic migrants, and that we are a beacon of tolerance in the world. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I told the taxi drivers in Strasbourg or Brussels that I was from London. They would say how incredibly lucky and fortunate I was compared with people in their countries, and how much more tolerant we are in many ways.
The other thing we have to realise is that we cannot let everyone in. Of course, our hearts want to help everyone we see who suffers persecution and has lost their home and family. We also understand that people want to come to make a better life for themselves, as my parents did as economic migrants. We had jobs and labour shortages in this country then, and the economic migrants filled that gap.
One of the questions we have to ask is: where do we draw the line? I will speak specifically to some of the amendments, beginning with Amendment 162 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and others. He is absolutely right, particularly on the Afghan relocation scheme: we have some moral obligation to the people from Afghanistan. Was it not as a result of some of our foreign policy interventions that some of these people are now in real danger for having co-operated with the British? Of course, there may well need to be a cap, but if there is a cap, I hope that the Government can explain where else some of those people can go. This highlights, once again, the need for international agreements to tackle this issue. This issue is not going away. For the reasons that people leave their homeland and want to come here or go elsewhere, we will see more and more migration, either by those fleeing persecution or for economic reasons. Therefore, we need to understand where else they can go.
I completely understand the sentiment behind Amendment 164, in the names of my noble friends Lady Stroud and Lord Kirkhope and others, but I do not necessarily agree on the timeline proposed. I also welcome the government amendment but, as my noble friend Lady Stroud said, we need guarantees that this will happen. It is not sufficient to say, “We will come forward with proposals for safe and legal routes”. If we do not have safe and legal routes, you might well say, “Well, we’re not going to stop the boats anyway”—but this will incentivise people to come on the boats, because there is no legal way for them to apply to come here. Some of those people who have applied and were rejected may well still try to come, but many others will say, “No, I’ve tried my luck, I’m not coming”, particularly when it comes to economic migrants.
Overall, I would like to ask the Government please to consider the language we use about this. We should be proud that we are a beacon internationally; we should be proud that people want to come here, but also understand that not everyone can come and we have to draw a line somewhere. These people are not invaders; they are simply seeking to escape persecution or coming here for a better life. I hope we can be more pragmatic. I am very sympathetic to both Amendments 162 and 164.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues of substance. I speak briefly to say that, on these Benches, we will be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, talked about his time in the Foreign Office and the mixing up of UN and national schemes. My noble friend Lord Triesman, who had a similar position to the noble Lord, said he was absolutely right in the way he summed up the position. So, we are happy to support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, on her amendment.
There have been a number of speeches that have reflected on the extremity of the situation for many people who want to come here. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was very fair in the way he summed up his position in supporting Amendment 164. He introduced his speech by saying he wants to fix little bits of the system to make it work better. I agree with that point, and that can be done through Amendment 164.
I say to my noble friend Lady Kennedy that I too met Anna Politkovskaya when I was a member of the OSCE in the early 2000s, and she was killed just a couple of months after I met her. There are people in absolutely extreme and desperate situations and there are many pressures on the Government—we understand that—but the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, is doing no more than asking the Government to put what they have promised from the Dispatch Box on the face of the Bill.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. My noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley and the noble Lord, Lord Green, made some powerful points, in particular on the presumed impact of some of these amendments on our ability to stop the boats. They also again highlighted the need to link the numbers admitted to the UK through safe and legal routes to our capacity to accommodate and support those who arrive through those routes.
Amendment 162, put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, seeks to exclude certain existing schemes from the safe and legal routes cap provision in this Bill. Exempting routes from the cap is not in keeping with the purpose of the policy, which is to manage the capacity on local areas of those arriving through our safe and legal routes. That said, I would remind the House that the cap does not automatically apply to all current or any future routes. Each route will be considered for inclusion on a case-by-case basis. This is due to the individual impact of the routes and the way they interact with the immigration system. This is why my officials are currently considering which routes should be within the cap and this work should not be pre-empted by excluding certain routes from the cap at this stage. I also point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to the power to vary the cap, set out in the Bill, in cases of emergency.
Amendment 163 would see the United Kingdom establish a new route for those who are persecuted on the basis of an individual’s protected characteristics—advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. This would be a completely new approach to international protection that goes far beyond the terms of the refugee convention. At present, all asylum claims admitted to the UK system, irrespective of any protected characteristic, are considered on their individual merits in accordance with our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. For each claim, an assessment is made of the risk to the individual owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Critically, we also consider the latest available country of origin information.
Under the scheme proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, there would be no assessment of whether, for the individual concerned, there exists the possibility of safe internal relocation, or whether the state in which an individual faces persecution by a non-state actor could suitably protect them. As well as extending beyond our obligations under the refugee convention, this amendment runs counter to our long-held position that those who need international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach—that remains the fastest route to safety.
Amendment 164, tabled by my noble friend Lady Stroud, seeks to enshrine in law a requirement to bring in new safe and legal routes within two months of the publication of the report required by Clause 60 of the Bill. This puts the deadline sometime next spring. I entirely understand my noble friend’s desire to make early progress with establishing new safe and legal routes, but it is important to follow proper process.
We are rightly introducing, as a number of noble Lords have observed, a requirement to consult on local authority capacity to understand the numbers we can effectively welcome, integrate and support arriving through safe and legal routes. We have committed to launching such a consultation within three months of Royal Assent of this Bill, but we need to allow local authorities and others time to respond and for us to consider those responses. We also, fundamentally, need to make progress with stopping the boats— stopping the dangerous crossings—to free up capacity to welcome those arriving by safe and legal routes.
Having said all that, I gladly repeat the commitment given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Immigration that we will implement any proposed additional safe and legal routes set out in the Clause 60 report as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024. In order to do something well, in an appropriate manner, we must have time in which to do so. We are therefore only a few months apart. I hope my noble friend will accept this commitment has been made in good faith and we intend to abide by it and, on that basis, she will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 165, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, would enable those seeking protection to apply from abroad for entry clearance into the UK to pursue their protection claim. Again, such an approach is fundamentally at odds with the principle that a person seeking protection should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. We also need to be alive to the costs of this and indeed the other amendments proposed here. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on the costs of Amendment 165, but I have to say that I disagree. Our economic impact assessment estimates a stream of asylum system costs of £106,000 per person supported in the UK.
The noble Lord’s scheme is uncapped; under it, there is a duty to issue an entry clearance to qualifying persons. Let us say for the sake of argument that 5,000 entry clearances are issued in accordance with that amendment each year, under his scheme. That could lead to a liability of half a billion pounds in asylum support each year. What is more, as my noble friend Lord Lilley so eloquently pointed out, it would not stop the boats. Those who did not qualify under the scheme would simply arrive on the French beaches and turn to the people smugglers to jump the queue.
Amendment 166 seeks to create an emergency visa route for human rights defenders at particular risk and to provide temporary accommodation for these individuals. This Government recognise that many brave individuals put their lives at risk by fighting for human rights in their countries. These individuals are doing what they believe to be right, at great personal cost. However, when their lives are at risk, I say again that those in need of international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. Such a scheme would also be open to abuse, given the status of human rights defenders, and that anyone can claim to be a human rights defender.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Is the UK resettlement scheme that the Government currently operate capped?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Presently, no, but clearly it will be subject to the cap. The problem, as the noble Lord well knows, is that we cannot take as many people as we would like to from the UNHCR because of the numbers who are coming here, jumping the queue by crossing the channel. That is precisely what these measures in the Bill are designed to address.
Amendment 167 seeks significantly to increase the scope of the UK’s family reunion policy, with no consideration as to how these individuals are to be supported in the UK, which could lead of itself to safeguarding issues. The amendment would even allow individuals to sponsor non-relatives. The present family reunion policy provides a safe and legal route to bring families together. Through this route, we have granted over 46,000 visas since 2015. This is not an insignificant number.
Family reunion in the UK is generous, more so than in the case of some of our European neighbours. Sponsors do not have to be settled in the UK, there is no fee and no time limit for making an application, and there are no accommodation or minimum income requirements which applicants must meet. There is also discretion to grant visas outside the Immigration Rules, catering to wider family members when there are compelling and compassionate factors. Given this track record, I remain unpersuaded of the case for the significant expansion of the family reunion route, as proposed by this amendment.
Finally, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I still owe him a letter arising from the Committee stage debate. I shall ensure that it is with him this week.
It is worth repeating that the people of this country have been generous in offering sanctuary to over half a million people since 2015. But our willingness to help those fleeing war and persecution must be tied to our capacity to do so. Clauses 59 and 60 are designed to this end. We are committed to introducing safe and legal routes by the end of 2024, and we remain open to a debate about whether the cap provided for in the Bill covers the current schemes set out in the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 162. I hope that, on this basis, he and other noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments to a Division. I commend the government amendments to the House and beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
(aa) the Executive Office in Northern Ireland”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 63, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 63, line 1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the first amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 63, line 1.
Baroness Stroud
“Duty to establish safe and legal routes(1) The Secretary of State must, within two months of the publication of the report required by section 60(1), make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes.(2) In subsection (1), a “safe and legal route” means a route which allows relevant persons to come to the United Kingdom lawfully from abroad.(3) In subsection (2), a “relevant person” is—(a) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention,(b) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection in accordance with the immigration rules, or(c) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom by virtue of Article 3 or 4 of the Human Rights Convention.”
Lord Coaker
“Organised immigration crime enforcement(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1 (the National Crime Agency), after subsection (10) insert—“(10A) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel.(10B) The NCA must maintain a unit (a “Cross-Border People Smuggling Unit”) to coordinate the work undertaken in cooperation with international partners in pursuit of the function mentioned in subsection (10A).””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause would give the National Crime Agency a legal responsibility for tackling organised immigration crime across the Channel, and to maintain a specific unit to undertake work related to that responsibility.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 168 would introduce a new clause, giving:
“the National Crime Agency a legal responsibility for tackling organised immigration crime across the Channel, and to maintain a specific unit to undertake work related to that responsibility”.
I thank the National Crime Agency for its briefing this morning, which was very helpful, and Home Office Ministers for helping to facilitate it.
Not for one moment am I suggesting in this amendment that any Minister, the Government or any Member of this House does not want to see the criminal gangs which exploit vulnerable people tackled and these criminals prosecuted. I also say at the outset that there will be many officials, officers and various agents working hard to do just that, and we should commend them for their work.
Apart from brief debates, the focus has been on deterring migrants, detention and deportation. All of that has been the subject of lively debate, disagreement and discussion. Clearly, that is a huge area of work which, so far, I suggest—hence my amendment—has not received the scrutiny it merits. This point was forcefully and powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in Committee.
There are many questions, some of which were raised in Committee. If I highlight some, I hope noble Lords will see the importance of this amendment and this short debate. One of the plan’s objectives is to concentrate on disrupting the provision of dinghies and equipment. How successful has that been in disrupting the flow of migrants? Tackling the criminal gangs requires international co-operation with countries across Europe and beyond. How is this co-ordinated? Are there any problems with such co-operation and agreement? How is the sharing of intelligence working? How is the sharing of data and joint policing working? Is that working effectively and do the Government need to do more to ensure that we achieve our common goal of disrupting these criminal gangs and deterring the flow of boats and migrants across the channel?
Can the Minister give us a figure for prosecutions? I have not seen the most recent and up-to-date figures; it would be useful for your Lordships’ House to hear them. Are those arrested from the boats and prosecuted the small fry, so to speak, or the big figures who run these horrific operations? We read in our newspapers that much of it is done and organised online—it is almost advertised. How effective have the social media companies been in taking such sites down? Do the law enforcement and intelligence agencies require government help to inject some urgency into what the social media companies do with these sites?
All of this requires the NCA to be supported by the Government here and across the continent more widely. My amendment, on which I will seek to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time, asks whether one amendment within the whole range of amendments we have debated around this Bill can demonstrate the concern we all have regarding how we tackle these criminal gangs. It would allow the NCA and others to highlight what they are doing; it would allow us to shine a light on what is happening, and to assess it and inject a focus that will let us all achieve what we want.
We need to deal with the challenge that we face, but we need to ensure, as much as we can, working with our own agencies and our international partners, that the full weight of our state and others will be brought to bear on those who run these criminal gangs. They prey on the vulnerabilities of often desperate people, including children, and exploit others’ misfortune. There should be no hiding place for these modern-day smugglers.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 168AZA stands in my name. When I first tabled this in Committee, it was supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier—who is his place and will, I hope, be saying something about it shortly—and my noble friend Lord Soames of Fletching. However, due to my complete incompetence, they seem to have fallen off this time, although I know that they are here—one physically and the other in spirit.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I had not planned to speak in this debate, but I feel I must rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
The Prime Minister repeatedly talks about “stopping the boats” as one of his top five priorities—you often get the feeling that it is in fact his top priority. If this Government really wanted to tackle the villains, the traffickers and the modern slave owners and, along with the French Government, round them up and put them where they need to be, they would have done it. Instead of doing that, however, the Government think, “No, we will leave those guys alone; we will focus on removing the rights of the victims, the trafficked people, the modern slaves, the unaccompanied children, the people escaping persecution and appalling treatment”.
This amendment is unusual. In all the debates we have had, the focus has been on the victims and on removing the safeguards for the victims. This amendment is appealing to the Government to give a duty to the NCA to round up the traffickers, the modern slave owners, and so on. It seems to me that the Government cannot say, “Oh, sorry, we cannot do that, it is too difficult; we just have to make life hell for the victims—that way we will deter them from coming”. I really hope that everybody in this Chamber will support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as being the single attempt—throughout all these debates—to have the Government focus their efforts where those efforts should be focused.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 168AZA. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, has explained why it is a very modest but important part of this discussion.
One reason why I think there is substantial public support for the Bill, at least in terms of the headlines and broad brush strokes, if not the detail—we have heard from the wide range of amendments the potential problems when looking at the detail of the Bill—is that people feel as though things are out of control. That is viscerally expressed by people seeing the boats arriving. The difficulty is that, in a discussion—even in this Chamber, but certainly beyond this Chamber—about what is really going on, many people feel as though they are confronting smoke and mirrors. They do not know who is here and under what status they are here.
I said at Second Reading—or at some stage, anyway—that many people feel as though they are being gaslit. When they raise concerns, they are told—as we have just heard a bit of—that these are trafficked people and victims. One reason why I support the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, a moment ago is that I feel that the terms “asylum seeker” and “refugee status” are being sullied by being used in a way that is unhelpfully broad and vague, often quite promiscuously and illegitimately, in order to say to the British public, “What are you worried about?” The problem is that the generosity of spirit around refugees is being tested, to say the least.
Therefore, we need to have a sense of proportion and to know what is going on. It is quite straightforward: we do not, which means that people bandy around emotive headlines and accusations against the British public—often unfairly—as though they are all xenophobic, they do not care, and so on. Also, quite grand statements are made. I think people want to know very clearly who is here illegally and in what category they are here.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for making the point that it is the obligation of this Government—or a Labour Government or any Government—to know who lives within our borders. If you do not know, then you do not have national sovereignty. You cannot run a country in which you say, “Oh, sorry, it is too difficult to know”. Anyone who says, “Find out for yourself” has not tried. We have all tried and we want to know that the people who run this society do know and therefore have a handle on it.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, before I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 168AZA, which I supported also in Committee, I want to make two very quick points about Amendment 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I entirely sympathise with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, but it strikes me that there is already a responsibility on the National Crime Agency to tackle organised crime of all types, not just immigration crime. I think we go a step too far if we legislate the internal administration of a police authority. There can be a debate and a disagreement about whether that is right; and perhaps the supporters of Amendment 168 are making a rhetorical point, and I can accept that; but I just caution against passing legislation that imposes a duty on the National Crime Agency that already exists.
Turning to Amendment 168AZA, I complained in Committee that, absent this information, we had government by guesswork, and government by guesswork is not a very attractive way of running anything, let alone an immigration system. For some of the reasons advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, a moment ago, ignorance creates suspicion, and suspicion leads to poor community relations and general dissatisfaction in the way in which the governed look at the governors. So I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to provide us with a convincing response, which I have not yet heard; nor have I been given any information by any Minister since we last debated this in Committee. It cannot be suggested that the Government do not like annual reports. One has only to look at Clause 60(1):
“The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period … prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the United Kingdom”.
The detail of what that report is supposed to contain each year is set out in Clause 60(2), and it has to appear within six months of the Act being passed.
The information that we think should be made public and brought together in a single annual report is set out in proposed new subsections (a) to (e) of our amendment. Proposed new subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) cover information that is available somewhere in the government system: some clever person can press a button and the numbers will come spewing out—easy. I accept that counting the number of illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom presents one or two more problems, because not every illegal immigrant is going to present himself at a counting centre; however, they can make an intelligent estimate.
I ask the Government to condescend to move a little bit towards us and provide the public with the information they feel they need to see and which the Government must know in order to run a sensible, humane and legitimate immigration system. That is all this is about, so let us get on with it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I very much support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. As has already been said so well by him and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, this is an extremely sensible idea. The public, as well as ourselves and the House of Commons, are entitled to know where we stand and what is happening with the numbers.
I share, to some extent, the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, purely and simply because I wonder to what extent the National Crime Agency has actually been consulted on what its priorities are. I quite see the importance of giving this priority, and I totally support it, but I would be interested to know, before we make this a part of primary legislation, whether the National Crime Agency, which I happen to know has a large number of different duties and works extremely well in many areas in this country, sees this area as a priority.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, first, I address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. He wondered why the amendment had not captured the imagination of the House. Speaking for those of us on these Benches, the Bill is entirely focused on refugees and asylum seekers, who form a very small proportion—a tiny fraction—of the 1.3 million people given leave to remain in the country last year. So while I agree in principle with what the noble Lord says—that we should have a much firmer grip on the number of illegal immigrants in this country—his amendment is not germane to the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very sorry, but on Report noble Lords are allowed to speak only once.
As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, the Bill is focused entirely on criminalising the victims of people smugglers and not on the people smugglers themselves. We intend to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: if his amendment is carried, at least there will be one line, or a few lines, in the Bill that will focus on the real problem, which is the criminal people smugglers and those who are carrying out modern slavery and trafficking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, in effect, that this amendment was not necessary because under Section 1(4) of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, one reason for the National Crime Agency to exist is:
“The NCA is to have the function … of securing that efficient and effective activities to combat organised crime and serious crime are carried out”.
People smuggling, people trafficking and so forth are clearly organised and serious crime, but that then leads to the question raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about priorities for the National Crime Agency. The strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency are set out in Section 3 of the 2013 Act, which says:
“The Secretary of the State must determine strategic priorities for the NCA”.
I have looked at the current strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency, as set by the Home Secretary, and people smuggling, trafficking and people facilitating the sorts of things that the Bill is supposed to combat are nowhere to be seen; there is nothing in the strategic priorities about it. How can the Government say that it is a priority of the Prime Minister to tackle small boats coming across the channel when it is not a strategic priority set by the Home Secretary for the National Crime Agency? The only way we can get the National Crime Agency to focus on people smugglers is to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is what we on these Benches will do.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 168 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to confer on the National Crime Agency a specific function in respect of tackling organised immigration crime and to require it to maintain a cross-border people-smuggling unit. The noble Lord opposite has spoken powerfully today, as he did at previous stages of the Bill. I am gratified to hear the powerful expressions of support from the noble Lord and the Benches behind him for the Government’s commitment to addressing these repugnant crimes.
I have sympathy for the underlying aim of this amendment, in that we all agree on the need to tackle organised immigration crime, but I put it to the noble Lord that his amendment is unnecessary. As we have heard from noble Lords in the debate, the functions of the National Crime Agency are set out clearly in Section 1 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who quoted from Section 1(4) of that Act:
“The NCA is to have the function … of securing that efficient and effective activities to combat organised crime and serious crime are carried out”.
At this point, I gratefully echo and adopt the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. This function covers all forms of organised crime, and therefore includes organised immigration crime. Accordingly, adding the proposed new function would add nothing to the NCA’s remit. One reads in the NCA’s annual report of the range of activities in which it is already engaged to help address the problem of cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. That commitment also appears on the face of its website, which looks at border vulnerabilities, modern slavery and human trafficking.
As for the second limb of the amendment, which would require the NCA to establish a bespoke cross-border people-smuggling unit, I put to the noble Lord and to the House that this would undermine the operational independence of the NCA—a point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is properly a matter for the director-general of the National Crime Agency to determine how best the agency is to be organised to deliver its statutory functions. In saying that, I again respectfully echo the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier from the Benches behind me.
I say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the Government are committed to confronting serious organised crime in and against the UK. To help achieve this outcome, we have made significant progress in strengthening the National Crime Agency. The NCA’s budget has increased by at least 21% in the last two years to more than £860 million, which will help it continue to develop the critical capabilities it needs.
I will address a couple of specific points put by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in opening this section of the debate. He asked about the manner in which the activities of organised crime through social media are being addressed by the NCA. The National Crime Agency works closely with the major tech companies to take down organised and information crime-related content where it appears on social media. Between November 2021 and March 2023, the NCA made more than 3,400 referrals to social media companies regarding posts and accounts related to suspected organised immigration crime. Some 97% of these referrals have been taken down by the respective platforms. I hope that offers some grounds for confidence to the noble Lord as he carefully addresses the provisions of the Bill and his response.
The noble Lord also asked me about the number of prosecutions arising from this. I will go on to touch upon that subject as I move on to the manner in which the NCA’s work, along with that of our partners abroad in other jurisdictions, is organised and co-ordinated. The Government have a dedicated multiagency organised immigration crime task force, to which the NCA contributes and in which it participates. This task force is committed to dismantling organised immigration crime groups engaged in immigration crime internationally, including criminal networks that facilitate people smuggling from source countries to Europe and then to the UK, knowingly putting people in life-threatening situations. If I may, I will rehearse a couple of statistics that I gave to your Lordships’ House in Committee. The task force is currently active in 17 countries worldwide, working with its partners to build intelligence sharing as well as investigative and prosecution capability.
I will now address the specific question regarding prosecutions that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, put to me from the Front Bench. Since 2015 and the inception of Project INVIGOR, the United Kingdom’s organised immigration crime task force has been involved in more than 1,400 arrests both in the United Kingdom and overseas with, on conviction, sentences collectively amounting to more than 1,300 years in prison being imposed.
Following the pledge made by the Prime Minister on 13 December to stop the dangerous small boats crossings, the Government have doubled funding for the next two financial years for this task force. This increased funding has as its aim doubling the number of disruptions and enforcement activity against organised immigration crime and the criminal gangs that facilitate it.
As the noble Lord said from the Dispatch Box, he has had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the NCA, and I am grateful for his kind words in relation to Home Office Ministers for assisting with facilitating that. I hope that, in light of what he learned in that meeting and what I have been able to say from the Dispatch Box concerning the activities of the NCA, the desirability of maintaining its operational independence and the increased funding under which it is operating, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 168AZA tabled by my noble friend Lord Swire, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report on illegal migration, including statistics on the number of illegal migrants in the United Kingdom. I understand that my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth has also discussed this amendment with my noble friend following Committee. We recognise the importance of having clear and coherent datasets, but I invite the House to reflect on this: by the very nature of that body, it is not possible to know the exact size of the illegal population or the number of people who arrive illegally, so we do not seek to make any official estimates of the illegal population. I hear what my noble friend has to say about the way in which such figures might be gathered, but they would remain estimates.
My noble friend bemoaned the fact that his amendment has not caught the attention of your Lordships’ House and that the House has not demonstrated affection for it. In my experience, your Lordships’ House has demonstrated on many occasions its feeling for the importance of statistical evidence as a guide to policy-making. I hear very clearly what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and my noble friend Lord Swire said about that. However, in circumstances where such figures cannot be known exactly, I invite the House to reflect that it would not be appropriate to pass my noble friend’s amendment in its current form.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful and careful response, which I appreciate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for their comments.
The Minister has put before us a whole range of facts and points that, frankly, we have not considered in any great depth as the Bill has gone through. That is the purpose of my Amendment 168. I accept the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that it is not the most brilliantly drafted amendment, scrutinised by high-calibre lawyers to be put into the Bill. It does not seek to do that; it attempts at least to allow this House and the other place, I hope, to debate how we will tackle the scourge of criminal gangs.
I have no political desire to say that the Government do not care about tackling criminal gangs—of course they do—but there is a real need for us to debate the most effective way of doing that. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, it is not a strategic priority under the 2013 legislation. Organised crime is where the Government always go when someone says that they are not giving enough priority to X crime—they say, “Of course we are, because the National Crime Agency has a responsibility to tackle any serious and organised crime”. It is an umbrella term, used when the Government are in trouble to say that they are dealing with it.
On the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I spoke to the National Crime Agency this morning and of course it is currently prioritising this. However, I want that tested. I want a sense of urgency. I want the Government to wake up and put all the efforts of the state into tackling criminal gangs. What is going on is a disgrace. If we were in Committee, I would ask the Government about prosecutions. In drug arrests, often it is the small people doing very limited things who get arrested and prosecuted; no doubt many of the prosecutions and arrests the National Crime Agency will bring forward will be of the people driving the engine. Of course they should be arrested, but they are not the barons in this criminal activity. They are not the people living in great mansions and yachts, organising all this misery right across the continent. That requires international co-operation.
I do not know how much international co-operation is going on, but this Parliament should be asking what pressure is being put on the Government to tackle these international criminals. The Government will say that they are doing this and that, but I want to know what we are doing; it is by me banging on at the Dispatch Box and the Minister having to ask his officials, “What shall I say to Coaker when he gets up?”, that the Minister gets the system to respond. The Minister will have been briefed by the NCA, the intelligence agencies will have fed into that, and people will be watching this debate. That injects something into the system that causes it to react and work more effectively and efficiently. That is why my amendment is so important.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that I know this is not the most brilliant amendment in the world, but my putting it down has meant that we are discussing an issue of real importance. If passed by this Chamber, as I hope it will be, it will go to the other place, which will be required—even if it rejects it—to discuss it again, as we will when it comes back here. I will not insist on a defective piece of legislation, in the end, going on to the statute book and I have said that we will not block the Bill. However, at one point during this Bill, I want all of us in this Parliament to discuss how we will tackle the scourge of criminal gangs, as well as concentrating on those fleeing persecution. I beg to move.
“Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees, to the United Kingdom through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees. (2) The strategy must also include provisions for tackling human trafficking to the United Kingdom.(3) The Secretary of State must make and lay before Parliament a statement of policies for implementing the strategy.(4) The first statement must be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act; and a subsequent statement must be made within twelve months of the making of the previous statement.(5) A Minister of the Crown must, within 28 sitting days of a statement under this section being laid before Parliament, move a motion in each House for the approval of the statement.(6) “Ten-year strategy” means a strategy for the period of ten years beginning with the day on which preparation of the strategy is completed.(7) “The Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.(8) A “sitting day”, in relation to each House of Parliament, means a day on which that House begins to sit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have a ten-year strategy for collaborating internationally to tackle refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees, to the United Kingdom and for tackling human trafficking to the United Kingdom.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 168A, tabled in my name. I shall also speak to Amendment 168C, which is consequential to it. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for co-signing it. This amendment is a combination of the two amendments that I put forward in Committee. It requires the Secretary of State to produce a 10-year strategy for tackling the global refugee crisis and human trafficking in collaboration with international partners. As I explained the rationale behind this in detail in Committee, I will be very brief.
In aid of this amendment I want to quote the Foreign Secretary, who spoke to an Italian newspaper a couple of days ago. He said that
“there needs to be an international response to this because it is an inherently international issue”.
We also need a long-term vision and strategy that reaches beyond short-term electoral cycles and allows this issue to be taken out of an entirely political agenda. The 1951 refugee convention is a fundamental basis for the care and protection of refugees. The convention should be built upon and added to, in collaboration with other signatories and international partners for the particular context that we face today, to ensure that we share responsibility fairly and work together effectively across borders.
In Committee, the Minister questioned the suitability of a 10-year strategy and suggested it would risk tying the hands of future Governments, but we have long-term strategies in other areas of policy, and quite rightly too: defence and security, climate change and many others. No strategy is set in stone; this amendment neither binds future Governments, which we cannot do, nor even specifies what exactly should go into a strategy for refugees and human trafficking. It simply requires that the Government, and future Governments, have one—a strategy—to consider actions in these areas right across the piece, joining up government in every area. The fact that we are here debating a second migration Bill in as many years suggests that this might well be useful.
There is much wisdom in this House which will be more usefully applied to a strategy than it is often given the chance to speak to. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is one of the great experts on migration, whether one always agrees with him or not. We need a calmer and properly structured look at the whole areas of migration.
The UK has led in the past, historically, and does so now. I want to stress that this amendment does not wreck or damage the Bill, or set intentions for the Government to follow. I remind the Minister of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in Committee, where he said he thought I was helping the Government by proposing such an amendment. It is indeed intended to be helpful, to improve the Bill by mitigating some of the concerns about a lack of a global and long-term perspective on the issues, and to offer something which this House and the other place could debate carefully and thoughtfully, whatever our differing views about the rest of the Bill. On the previous set of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about the need to be able to debate in an open and honest way; that is the intention of this amendment.
Therefore, I hope that the Government and all noble Lords can see that this amendment is a positive and constructive suggestion, whatever I or others may feel about the Bill in general. I urge the Government to develop a strategy that is ambitious, collaborative, worthy of our history and up to the scale of the enormous challenges we face. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the most reverend Primate and to support his amendment, the essence of which is constructive and positive.
Over the course of the discussions and debates on this Bill, opinions have been very passionate. Understandably, given that there are so many key issues to look at, the debate has been fractious on occasion. However, this amendment stresses the need for a long-term strategy. Rather than having individual states acting in isolation, which we are in danger of doing, surely, we can come together and say, “Yes, we do need a strategy and to look at this in a multilateral way”. This is a problem that I think we all accept will get more serious in the light of climate change, food security issues, warfare and great population movements.
This issue was last looked at in any meaningful way in 1951, and from very much a European perspective. Many states have not been signatories to that convention, but whatever one feels about it, it certainly met the needs of the time. The problems are very different now. These population movements are now much more a global issue, and we need a long-term strategy.
As the most reverend Primate said, in Committee the Government’s answer seemed substantially to be that a strategy would bind future Governments—a strange thing for them to be saying in the run-up to an election. However, it is much more important than that. As the most reverend Primate said, we have strategies on all sorts of things. It is important to build some common ground so that this does not become a party-political football. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, we are in a very strong position to take an international lead on this—something that the Government would surely want to do.
I suspect that the Government’s stance may have shifted somewhat—from “We don’t want a strategy because it binds the hands of future Governments”, to “this Bill deals with a short-term issue”. This is not a short-term issue but very much a long-term one, and it will get more serious. We need an approach that is not ad hoc, not a stop-gap and not short term. It must be long term and look at these issues much more in the round, and it must do so internationally.
Given that there have been so many defeats, I hope that the Government are thinking positively about accommodating in the Bill the strength of views expressed in this House, and that developing a long-term strategy makes sense and is something we can all get behind. I urge them to do so, or to tell us what their strategy is. If they do have a strategy, it would be good to hear it. In the absence of that commitment and explanation, the conclusion will be that the cupboard is bare.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too added my name to the amendment tabled by the most reverend Primate. I did so because, as has been said, this issue will really challenge us in the years ahead. It is imperative that we collaborate with other nations and are involved in meaningful conversations about how to share responsibility for those who are being persecuted.
However, we must recognise that climate change will cause enormous displacements of people. While we can seek comfort, as lawyers do, in saying that the refugee convention does not apply to those fleeing climate change because its definitions do not embrace that possibility, the reality is that people will be fleeing for their lives—just as those who are persecuted do—from places to which they will not be able to return. There will be heavy questions about what we do in the face of that. In any strategy, it is necessary to think about how we support the countries alongside places where there are conflicts, where there will be a dearth of, and conflict over, water; let alone the existing conflicts over resources in parts of Africa such as lithium—the stuff in our phones—rare earth minerals, gold and black diamonds.
We will face many problems in the years ahead, and it is only by collaborating with other nations, especially developed nations and our nearest neighbours, that we will find a solution. It is a cross-party issue, and people should be thinking and talking about it together. We must have a Home Office that works well, that can deal with this issue properly and that is not failing speedily to address valid applications for asylum. It has been failing on that for a number of years because of the cuts made to it.
I support the idea that there should be a clear strategy for parties of any complexion to follow in working through this. I strongly urge the House to support the most reverend Primate’s amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, in supporting the amendment tabled by the most reverend Primate.
The figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees alone are justification for this amendment: over 110 million people displaced in the world today. We cannot tackle that alone, and we cannot ignore it either. Therefore, we have a duty to come together with other nations and to take this issue as seriously as we have rightly taken the climate crisis. The COP is not a bad model to look at in the context of the 110 million people.
Why is this great country of ours not taking the lead, as we did with people such as Eleanor Rathbone and Sir Winston Churchill in the period after the Second World War, in convening an international forum to drive an agenda that deals with not the pull factors about which we hear so much but the push factors that send people on these desperate journeys? I was recently in north Africa on the very day that a ship went down off the coast of Greece, killing more than 70 people. Why were they making those desperate journeys? It was mainly to escape destitution and conflict.
Lord Horam (Con)
This is an important initiative from the most reverend Primate on this subject, for two reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, just said, it is truly an international subject; there are huge issues here that we cannot escape and generations to come will not be able to escape. Secondly, we have to tackle this on a long-term basis, but that does not mean that it has to be set in concrete for 10 years. I am sure the most reverend Primate meant exactly that.
For example, Australia has a framework with which both its Liberal Party and its Labor Party agree. Each year they look at the numbers and agree how many should come in for work reasons, as asylum seekers, for economic reasons or for family reasons. The number is debated in Parliament and it may change. We ought to debate immigration and how much we should have every year, as we debate the Budget. We will disagree. Governments will change and the numbers will change, but within a framework that we all understand and to which we can relate. It would give ordinary people in this country a better feeling about this subject, rather than the resentment and difficulty that we have faced over many years, as we did over Brexit, for example.
The most reverend Primate may be pushing at an open door. He may be aware that, last week in Brussels, the Governments of eight countries—Denmark, Greece and Austria among them—wrote to the European Commission asking the European Union to pursue a new approach, based on the British model. That is one point.
Secondly, alongside those eight countries, another group—including Italy and the Netherlands—has said that it wants to pursue a new model, based on the British approach. No other practical approach has been forthcoming. We think that we have problems, but Italy is talking about the possibility of 400,000 people crossing the Mediterranean, when we are talking about 45,000 last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying, this is a truly international problem and will have only an international conclusion. As that is what is happening in Europe, the most reverend Primate may be pushing at an open door.
It is not surprising that this is happening because, whichever way you look at this issue, you come back to something along the lines that the Government are proposing. I know that some quite serious amendments have been proposed in this House, some of which will go through and some of which will not. None the less, the basic bones of this—safe and legal routes on the one hand, and some means to deter illegal migrants on the other—will be there whatever we try. Over a year ago, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change said that, whichever way you look at this, those two elements will probably be there in any solution.
I want to raise a separate point with my noble friend the Minister, which I have raised before but not yet had answered. There is a lot of legality surrounding the Government’s proposals, the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. We should not get too bogged down in the legalisms, because we need a common-sense approach that deals with the problem as it is today. As I understand it, discussions are going on not only in Europe about adopting the British model for the overall problem but between the UK Government and other Governments about how this would sit against our existing treaties in Europe, in particular the ECHR, and whether elements are incompatible or are largely in agreement. I would like to know whether these discussions are taking place. I am not a lawyer, but it seems sensible, if the legal arrangements allow it, for these sorts of discussions to take place. That seems common sense to me, rather than having ping-pong arrangements in which some people disagree and it goes to the courts. We ought to be able to discuss these issues rationally before they go to the courts.
The most reverend Primate is raising this issue in the right sort of way, but I believe that all this, taken together, means that the Government are right to persevere on their fundamental track while taking account, sympathetically, of the points that have been made.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest on the register in relation to human trafficking. If I may respectfully say so, the most reverend Primate has put forward not only a very shrewd but a very wise proposal. It ought to be cross-party; it certainly should not be brushed aside as though it were just part of the Bill, because it is much deeper and goes much further.
I am very glad that proposed subsection (2) includes provisions for tackling human trafficking, because there is a chance that we might retrieve a little of the Modern Slavery Act—something of which this country ought to have been intensely proud, until last year and this year—if we manage to do something sensible, as the most reverend Primate has suggested.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, I will say a brief word in support of the most reverend Primate and to follow my noble friend Lord Horam. If we are to deal with this problem, it ultimately has to be on the basis of cross-party support, rather like defence. How are we going to do that without somebody first putting forward a framework that will, undoubtedly, be unsatisfactory to the other parties? Then there will be debate and ultimately consensus.
There has to be international action, but that is so difficult. Unless our own country takes a broad-based approach to this problem, we will drive the solutions to the fringes, which will be very dangerous for our politics. It has happened in Italy and Hungary, and is perhaps happening in the United States. It is happening around the world where Governments have failed to base their response broadly enough and therefore keep the extremists at the very fringes, where they always are.
The most reverend Primate offers a way of introducing that kind of debate into our programme. I am the last person to think that making a strategy is the solution to a problem. That is always the long grass—let us have a strategy and it will disappear for ever into committees. I did that myself as a Minister many a time. What he is offering here—and I hope we respond to it in the right spirit—is perhaps the beginning of a way in which we can broaden the basis of agreement about our approach, so that what does not happen, if, say, by some surprise the party opposite comes into power, is that it reverses everything that we have done. What will the electorate think then? They will say that these people cannot be trusted to deal with this problem, which is right in the general public’s mind. If we make it the knockabout of ordinary party politics, we will not have served our people well.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I had intended to vote against this proposal, but I confess that I am persuaded by the opening speech from the most reverend Primate. It is clearly a useful proposal, and contributions from around the House point to that.
I will make one point. It is a short-term point but I do not apologise for that. We really must not overlook the very serious problems that we now have in the channel. The public are very angry about it, and rightly so. It is extremely difficult to deal with. For all the criticism that is made of the Government, those who may be a future Government understand that it could be difficult for them too. If all that is continuing, there will not be a wider audience for these very important and longer-term considerations.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, many noble Lords have made very helpful and interesting points in this debate. Amendment 168A, moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, raises an interesting matter of policy, seeking as it does to introduce a new clause to require the Secretary of State to
“prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees … through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees”.
Although I agree with much of the sentiment behind this worthy aim, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.
The Bill is to deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK. It is not a Bill about international agreements into which the UK may enter in the future, modify or make. It is for the Government of the day to propose a policy, not the unelected Chamber. Measures such as that which we are now debating tend to be part of general manifesto proposals, on which a Government is elected. They therefore have the authority of the people in whose name the Government are formed, and they reflect the democratic wish. Yes, such a policy may indeed become part of a future Government’s manifesto proposals, but I do not believe that it is for this Chamber to bind the current Government in such a way as Amendment 168A proposes.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks. Clearly, the most reverend Primate will push his amendment to a Division, and from the contributions that have been made it seems likely that the House will support him in doing that. None the less, I want to offer a slightly different perspective.
There is much that is compelling and sensible about what the most reverend Primate has argued, and a lot of the points made by others in support of his amendment are worthy of serious consideration. I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Bourne said about the need for us to revisit these issues, which have been in place since the 1950s. However, the wholesale approach to this question proposed by way of this amendment requires confidence from everybody to support our motives in taking that approach. We have to keep in mind that the kind of people who support the Bill and want the priority and exclusive focus now to be on stopping the boats are the kind of people who have lost a lot of confidence in the democratic process and in the institutions of this country.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the will of the people often gets quoted—for instance, by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Lawlor. Many of us work on the ground with refugees and people who support refugees. The will of the people is to be a compassionate, welcoming nation to refugees and asylum seekers, as we have seen demonstrated by the welcome to Ukrainians and Afghans, and as I see demonstrated regularly. The will of the people is also that we find ways of stopping the boats—I agree. That is exactly why we need to get on with doing a 10-year strategy. It is about trying to bring all those people together, who can be compassionate and want to stop the boats at the same time. This is the right and proper time to do that, off the back of the Bill, so that we move forward with a 10-year strategy. I think that what the people want is for us to get the refugee thing out of party-political toing and froing and find a way forward together.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate, because this amendment gives us an opportunity to look beyond the Bill. It is clear from the days and days that we have been debating the Bill that there are severe doubts about whether it will achieve its aims and severe doubts about the way that it is doing it. But we need to look beyond that if we are trying to find something that will beat the situation that we are all going to face in the years and decades to come.
We support this amendment because it sets out a different approach in responding to the global challenges of refugees and trafficking. Global challenges—that is what they are—require global solutions. We just cannot be isolationists. We need to recognise and take responsibility for the impact of our responses in an interconnected global community. We have to work with our European neighbours and global partners, building on frameworks and building new partnerships that should be broad and inclusive, with the active engagement of refugees and victims of trafficking, who can contribute from their lived experience.
In the UK, there needs to be a cross-departmental approach involving real consultation with a range of stakeholders, including local government, our devolved Governments, civil society organisations and international partners, which deliver some of the resettlement and humanitarian responses we have to deal with in this country. Any strategy should include a diversity of routes to safety and a harmonised approach to entitlements and protection once in the United Kingdom, particularly access to integration support. Partnerships with faith groups and their diasporas should be forged to secure good integration outcomes, and refugee family reunion should underpin all the offers of protection that the strategy outlines.
This amendment speaks to a sensible conversation because that is what it is intended to do: to start us on that route of a journey of thinking. There are great people in this House and great wisdom is expressed in a multitude of views, but in the end we are a humane and compassionate country and I would like to see us start on that journey. I recommend the amendment put forward by the most reverend Primate as a way to begin that sensible conversation .
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to open by addressing the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell. To summarise what she said, one can have a strategy only when one has people’s trust, and this Bill is about stopping the boats; I think that was the gist of her argument. My argument, and the other argument I have heard in this debate, is that even if this Bill achieves its end completely, the most reverend Primate’s amendment would still be appropriate because we still need a strategy as the situation develops over the next 10 years. I think that addresses the point the noble Baroness made.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
As the noble Lord has referenced what I said, if I may, I shall respond to that point. What we have to understand is that people question our motives now because we have too many times behaved in such a way as to suggest that we do not want to take seriously what they are voting for.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I do not question the most reverend Primate’s motives in putting down this amendment. It is a shame that we are ending like this, because it has been a wide-ranging debate about aspirations beyond the Bill. I have certainly never seen an archbishop move an amendment at any stage of a Bill, let alone the latter stages of such a contentious Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, this has been a passionate and fractious debate; nevertheless, people have raised their eyes—if I can put it like that —to talk about the wider issues we are trying to address through the Bill and into the future. The most reverend Primate’s amendment is about strategy.
My colleague quickly checked on the phone, and I cannot help noting that the noble Lords, Lord Horam, Lord Waldegrave and Lord Green, all voted for the Government in the previous vote and have all indicated that they will be supporting the most reverend Primate in the forthcoming vote. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, is shaking his head; I beg his pardon.
Nevertheless, this has been a remarkable debate, partly for the reason that it has been initiated, and also because it is ending a Bill which has really caught the attention of the wider public. We are dealing with fundamental issues concerning the way we manage our asylum system. The Government and the Opposition acknowledge that there are fundamental problems with the way we deal with these very vulnerable people.
There has been a number of speeches in this debate about Britain taking a leading role in trying to come up with a migration system which addresses these fundamental problems. I have been in this place a long time—some 33 years—and in that time I have been on the OSCE, the Council of Europe and the relevant committees dealing with migration issues. These are fundamentally problematic issues. Here, we are addressing an amendment moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that tries to put a strategy in place, and I invite the Minister to accept it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords, but particularly the most reverend Primate, for clearly setting out the rationale behind his amendment. Let me say again from the outset, as I did in Committee, that I entirely understand the sentiment behind the proposed 10-year strategy for tackling refugee crises and human trafficking.
The Government recognise the interconnected nature of migration and the need to work collectively. That is why we are already engaged and working tirelessly with international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking. As I set out in Committee, we continue to support overseas programmes to fight modern slavery and human trafficking, including through the modern slavery fund, through which more than £37 million of funding has been provided by the Home Office since 2016. The work includes projects across Europe, Africa and Asia, a joint communiqué with Albania and a signed joint action plan with Romania, which reinforce our commitment to working collaboratively to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking in both the short and long term. We also engage with the international community on a global scale by working with multilateral fora such as the G7, the G20, the Commonwealth and the United Nations.
Moreover, while I understand the desire for a published strategy, I would not want this to detract from the work already being done to deliver in this way. This Bill is part of the Government’s strategic and interconnected approach to tackling human trafficking and illegal migration. It is the aim of this Bill to tackle the threat to life arising from dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings and the pressure that places on our public services.
Furthermore, the view of this Government—one which I believe is eminently sensible—is not to create a siloed refugee strategy. As has been highlighted by many noble Lords throughout Committee and Report, refugee crises are complex and something for the entire international community to address. Indeed, migration by irregular routes to the United Kingdom would usually involve individuals travelling through multiple countries, so it follows that, and I agree with many noble Lords that, the United Kingdom cannot tackle this alone. I certainly also agree with the most reverend Primate’s challenge: that the best way to address displacement on this scale is through a holistic approach, utilising, where appropriate, developmental, diplomatic, military and humanitarian interventions. This is what we are already doing, working with our international partners.
During the debate on the previous amendments, I also detailed the United Kingdom’s work in developing the Global Compact on Refugees and our substantial engagement with the World Bank, which I shall not repeat here. However, I wish to stress that we already engage with our international partners through proper channels and will continue to do so.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to all Members of this House who have contributed to this debate. I agreed with virtually every word the Minister said. Had I not been convinced of the need for this amendment to be on the face of the Bill beforehand, he has absolutely convinced me by how he set out the different ways in which government needs to work; I just did not agree with his conclusion.
“We will keep it under review”, is what I spent years saying to our children: “I will think about it”. They knew exactly what that meant. When it came to the vote on getting a television after 10 years without—we had an annual family vote—through threats against our middle son, his elder sister swung his swing vote in favour of a television; they knew I would never say yes on my own. With that experience of terror and corruption in the Welby family, and with some regret, I must ask if we may test the opinion of the House.
Lord German
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, in the name of my noble friend Lord Paddick, I shall say a few words about Amendment 168BA and the consequential amendment that is at the rear end of this debate. Essentially, these amendments represent a protection for the Government. The purpose of the Bill is to use removal as a deterrent to people arriving on irregular routes. Without a place to remove people who claim asylum, the intended deterrent is absent, and that applies to a third country to which people can be removed. Therefore, by the Government’s logic, without a third country to remove people to, this legislation will, for the greater part, not work.
Once the Government’s plans come into force, they will be unable to process asylum claims. All that they will be doing is detaining people. After 28 days, once the individual is able to apply for immigration bail, they will remain in limbo until such time as there is a removal agreement. That may well all be solved by the Supreme Court making its judgment, but in the meantime—and I hope that somebody who has a legal background can explain roughly how long the Supreme Court will take in dealing with the matter—if we have more and more people coming here, all of whom will first be detained and then will be in some form of detention, that will spell disaster.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group that seek to defer the start date for deportation, including to Rwanda, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal judgment. My understanding—I stress I am not a lawyer —is that the Court of Appeal found that in principle the removal of people who enter the country illegally to a safe country is lawful, that the Government can designate countries as safe and that the processes for determining eligibility are fair.
However, I want to comment on a matter of principle that is at stake here. The courts interpret the laws of this country but do not make them. Parliament is the legislature, and constitutionally it legislates on laws proposed by the Government on the authority of the people who elect them. It is for this Chamber to scrutinise such laws. International agreements, by contrast, are freely entered into for a variety of reasons. The Government reach an agreement and, given national interests, can renegotiate or otherwise, as judged best. That is the prerogative of a sovereign power. In so far as national interests may clash with international conventions, it will be for the Government to establish the law and for the courts to uphold it.
As a scrutinising and revising Chamber, we should not stand in the way of the Government by deciding that we should await a court decision to decide the law. In our nearest neighbour, France—historically, the most similar country politically and constitutionally to this one—a telling debate has developed about the dangers posed to democracy by the courts obstructing the democratic will on matters particularly of asylum and repatriation. That debate is one that I hope we in this Chamber will not prompt on this side of the channel. I hope the Minister will reject this amendment, which would put the operation of the Bill in the hands of the courts, not Parliament and the elected Chamber.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, our approach to the Bill has always been to respect the fact that the other place has a right to have its legislation passed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned, we have a right to revise, scrutinise and pass amendments seeking to improve or change aspects of the Bill. It is my view and that of His Majesty’s Opposition that this Chamber has done its job—not blocking the Bill, however much we oppose it, but improving it. Numerous improved protections and safeguards have been passed, with requirements to uphold traditional judicial oversight and conform to domestic and international laws. In pursuing this, the proper constitutional function of the Lords, I ask of the other place only that sufficient time is given to allow proper scrutiny and thought to be given to our proposals.
In this context, we cannot support Amendment 168AB and the other amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. Of course, we understand the motivation and agree with him about Rwanda and his other points, but it appears that the amendment would block, or at the very least significantly delay, the Bill. In the context of what I have said on a number of occasions, and of what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said from the Dispatch Box, we do not support that approach.
My Amendment 168BAA says that Schedule 1 cannot come into force for a country not found to be safe until a decision has been overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. In other words, I ask the Government to confirm that there is no legislative mechanism that they can or will use to avoid or bypass the judgment of the Court of Appeal and deport people to Rwanda before the Supreme Court makes its decision. I am looking for the Minister to confirm the Government’s approach with respect to this, so that we have it on the record.
The Government may say that this is all unnecessary, and many of us thought that to be the case. However, in the media over the weekend, there were reports that the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has urged the current Prime Minister to fast-track the implementation of the Rwanda migrant policy by changing the law to designate it a safe country. He said that the Government should use their majority in Parliament to use provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act that would allow them to designate countries as safe. Were the Government to adopt that recommendation from the former Prime Minister, the implications would be clear. Can the Minister categorically rule that out? Presumably, were this to be done, it could be done by secondary legislation—the Minister will be aware of the debate about this on another matter.
Subject to such assurances, I will not press my amendment to a vote—but it would be helpful for the Minister to outline, alongside this, what happens if the government appeal to the Supreme Court fails. Why would this not throw the Government’s policy off course? Do the Government have a plan B, or are they simply ploughing on, in the expectation of a successful appeal? Given the dependence of the Illegal Migration Bill on detention and then deportation, and given the importance of Rwanda to the Government’s policy, it would be interesting to hear what, if anything, the Government plan for that.
Even today, we read that the Border Force’s own forecasts suggest that the boats pledge will fail. As we have said on numerous occasions, we all want to see this challenge met and dealt with—but efficiently and effectively, in a way that is consistent with our domestic and international laws and requirements.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it will come as no surprise to the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Coaker, that the Government cannot support these amendments, not least as they are, simply, unnecessary. It may be that they were tabled as a hook to have a further debate about the judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal last week.
As noble Lords will recall, on Thursday afternoon last week, I repeated the Oral Statement that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary had delivered earlier in the day in the Commons; we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, then. To repeat what my right honourable friend said last Thursday, we respect the Court of Appeal’s judgment and welcome the fact that it unanimously found in the Government’s favour on the vast majority of the appeals brought against the policy. In particular, the Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31. Indeed, the court found that it is lawful in principle for the Government to relocate people who come to the United Kingdom illegally to a safe third country; that the Government can designate countries as safe; and that our processes for determining eligibility for relocation were fair. Members of this House contended that these issues were not the case in Committee and on Report, and we are glad that that feature has been confirmed by the Court of Appeal. That aspect of the judgment reaffirms the core principles underpinning the Bill and, on that basis, there is absolutely no reason why we should not continue with the scrutiny of the Bill and see it on to the statute book as quickly as possible.
On the finding of the court, by a majority decision—the Lord Chief Justice dissenting—on whether Rwanda is a safe third country, we have indicated that we will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The intention is for this application to be determined promptly. If leave to appeal is granted, it is then properly a matter for the Supreme Court to determine when the case will be heard. The Government are disappointed by the judgment, and it is also disappointing for the majority of the British public who have repeatedly voted for controlled migration, and for all those who want to see us deliver on our moral and democratic imperative to stop the boats.
Turning to the amendments, what does the judgment mean for the commencement of the Bill? I will make two points. First, on the core scheme provided for in the Bill—the duty to make arrangements for removal in Clause 2 and the other provisions directly tied to it—our position has always been that we will seek to implement these provisions as soon as practicable. The decision of the Supreme Court and the operation of our ground-breaking partnership with the Rwandan Government are important factors relating to that question of practicality. Clause 67 already provides for Clause 2 and the other elements of the core scheme to be commenced by regulations, so we are not bound to any particular date, and it remains the Government’s position that we will commence these provisions as soon as practical.
Secondly, there are a number of free-standing provisions in the Bill not directly tied to the duty in Clause 2. These include provisions in Clauses 11, 15 to 20, 29 to 36 and 57 to 61. There is no good reason why the commencement of these provisions should be tied to the outcome in the Supreme Court. Indeed, in relation to Clauses 29 to 36, which provide for the bans on re-entry, settlement and citizenship, the Bill provides for these clauses to come into force on Royal Assent.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I do not propose to comment on the recent article written by the former Prime Minister in the Mail; the views expressed in it are a matter for him. Having had this further opportunity to debate this important judgment, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response. You can understand the concern that was raised by having a former Prime Minister ask the Government to consider bypassing the court judgment by using secondary regulations to give them the power to do that under the Asylum and Immigration Act. All I was asking for is a comment on that. I take heart from what the Minister said because it seemed that, despite what he said about the former Prime Minister, the important part of it was that the Government would of course abide by the consequences of the Court of Appeal judgment, subject to the further appeal, if granted, to the Supreme Court.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
As I have already said, I am afraid that I cannot comment further—tempted though I am—on what the former Prime Minister said. The noble Lord has the sense of the Government’s response.
Baroness Hamwee
“(ba) section (Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking) (ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for the new clause after Clause 61 proposed in another amendment in the name of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury to come into force on the day on which the Act is passed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Lord Murray of Blidworth at page 41, line 19.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 10th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 148-III Third marshalled list for Report - (3 Jul 2023)
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Bill be now read a third time.
Relevant documents: 34th and 37th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 16th Report from the Constitution Committee, 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Correspondence from the Senedd published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, before we commence proceedings on the Bill, I am obliged to make a short statement setting out the position on legislative consent. It is the UK Government’s view that the Bill relates to reserved or excepted matters—namely, immigration and nationality—in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and is therefore not within the legislative competence of any of the devolved legislatures.
The United Kingdom Government note that the Senedd has declined to agree a legislative consent Motion in relation to certain provisions in the Bill, but it is our view that the legislative consent process is not engaged in relation to Wales.
Noble Lords will recall that we added a provision on Report relating to legal aid in Northern Ireland. Such a provision may amount to an alteration of the Department of Justice’s executive functions; as such, we consider that this provision engages the legislative consent process in Northern Ireland. However, due to the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, a legislative consent Motion cannot be secured.
For completeness, I add that no legislative consent Motion has been considered by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government sought to bring forward such a Motion in relation to the modern slavery provisions in the Bill, but the Presiding Officer concluded that it did not meet the terms of the relevant standing order of the Scottish Parliament and consequently it was not debated. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for too long at this stage but, in view of what transpired on Report, it is fitting that I say a few words before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House.
There is clearly some disagreement about the means, but we all agree on the necessary ends: we must stop the boats. It remains the Government’s contention that the provisions of the Bill, as introduced in your Lordships’ House, are a vital plank of the actions we are taking to stop these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings of the channel. As my noble friend Lord Clarke so memorably noted, we have not heard an effective alternative. But, if we are to stop the boats, it is imperative that the scheme provided for in the Bill is robust and sends the unambiguous message that, if you enter the UK illegally, you will not be able to build a life here; instead, you will be detained and swiftly returned, either to your home country or to a safe third country.
As a result of the many non-government amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House on Report, that message is no longer unambiguous. It is, at best, half-hearted and, at worst, now wholly absent from the Bill. The Government are reflecting carefully on each and every amendment, but I have no doubt that many will not find favour with the other place and we will soon be debating them again.
Having said all that, I record my thanks for all the valued contributions made by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite during the Bill’s passage. It is particularly appropriate, following the sad news of his death late last week, that I express my sincere appreciation for the insightful contribution made by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood at Second Reading. This was one of his last speeches in this place and I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords if I say that his passing is a great loss to this House.
While there has not been much common ground between these Benches and those opposite, I express my gratitude for the candid and courteous way in which the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, have engaged with me on the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his Front-Bench colleagues for their clarity of message, albeit not one that I have been able to agree with.
Finally, I am duty bound to record my sincere gratitude for the invaluable help and assistance of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Davies and my noble and learned friends Lord Bellamy and Lord Stewart. I put on record my particular thanks to the excellent Bill manager, Mr Charles Goldie, and thank Gurveer Dhami, the deputy Bill manager, the whole of the Bill team, my private office staff and the officials and lawyers in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice who have provided excellent support, along with the first-class drafting of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
As I have indicated, I suspect it will be an unusually short time before we are debating these matters again, but for now I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have a short time before this Bill comes back and I would like to take this opportunity to say to my noble friend that the Bill has been significantly altered and, in the view of many of us, generously improved in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend said some fairly strong words and, of course, he is fully entitled to do that but I urge that he discusses with his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Home Secretary, some of the speeches that have been made in this House and the underlying concern of those speeches—many of them made from this side of the House—that there is an absence of kindness, consideration and concern in the Bill that came before us at Second Reading.
The Bill has been improved. It has been made more human and more humane. If there is a particular thing that illustrates what I am trying to say—and it was raised earlier this afternoon, and I raised it myself in the gap when we debated the Windrush generation on Friday—it is that this incident of the painting out of murals designed only to amuse unaccompanied children sends out a message that, frankly, is not worthy of our country. I urge my noble friend to permeate his discussions on this Bill and his consideration with the Home Secretary as to which amendments can be amended, which can be accepted and which they feel they have to resist, with a recognition that it is the kindness and consideration of this country that have made it a great country. One has only to cite the Jews in the years before the war and the Ugandan Asians who came into this country 50 years ago, both enriching our communities.
Of course we cannot have boat people coming indiscriminately, but we must recognise that they are human beings, that they are individuals and that they are worthy of consideration as such. I implore my noble friend to enter some of that spirit into the discussions that he is shortly to have with the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just said. I want to draw attention to the fact that the last-minute publication of the child rights impact assessment, which required the intervention of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, meant that we were unable to pay due attention to it during the Bill’s passage—despite children being among the Bill’s main victims. Therefore, I will say a few words now.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes clear that a child rights impact assessment should be built in
“as early as possible in the development of policy”.
The fact that it arrived so late and reads more like a repetitive post hoc justification of the Bill’s measures than a serious analysis of their implications for the rights and best interests of the child suggests that it was not. Noble Lords from across this House and the Children’s Commissioner have called for the assessment since the Bill’s introduction. The commissioner has now made clear that the assessment “does not allay” her
“concerns about the impact of this Bill on children”.
With particular reference to detention and the use of force, she notes that it
“relies on overly optimistic assumptions about what might come to pass to reach conclusions about the positive effect on children, while ignoring or overlooking the clear, evidenced and tangible negative impacts it will have”.
While the Home Office’s use of the DfE template is welcome, it serves to expose the lack of evidence to support its assessment of the impact on children’s rights and its failure to consult externally. From the perspective of process and outcome this is a travesty of a child rights impact assessment. I hope that we remember that when it comes to the process of ping-pong on amendments affecting children.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
From these Benches, I echo the remarks made by the Minister about our late and lamented noble and learned friend Lord Brown, who is sorely missed and who was often an inspiration to us all, even when we did not entirely agree with him, because he always inspired conceptual thinking.
I thank the Minister—and I do mean this by the way—for his patience while under fire, even though I mostly disagreed with his responses when they came. However, behind and underneath that carapace of patience has been a failure to understand that the Government set out to do something that is neither possible nor legal. We were told that the Bill would stop the boats as a deterrent. However, we know that the boats were fuller than ever in June. We were told that sending asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda would be a deterrent. However, sending them to Rwanda is illegal—I use the word advisedly—under the laws of this country, at least until the matter has been relitigated in the Supreme Court. In the Minister’s consultations with the Home Secretary, the Government should give serious consideration to pausing this Bill until that hearing has taken place. It seems extraordinary to me, as a long-time parliamentarian in both Houses, for this Parliament to be asked to pass a Bill which requires something unlawful to be done. I have a basic opposition to that.
I will say one other thing. Some of us are already receiving messages from various well-informed members of the media about changes the Government intend to make to this Bill. It would be helpful if we were informed at approximately the same time as the media so that we can make a considered judgment as to what we do during ping-pong and so that we can carry out the role which, I believe, we have performed effectively hitherto.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I agree with so much of what he said. I do not normally support the contemporary fashion for many speeches at Third Reading, but, because of the Minister’s kind words about the late noble and learned Lord, Simon Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I want to echo the tributes to him at this opportunity. He was a titan of our chambers and of so much more. He was, above all else, an incredibly kind human being. Kindness is a quality that has been mentioned in this Chamber today a number of times.
The Minister is quite right that Lord Brown was much more sympathetic to the Minister’s position on this Bill than perhaps I have been, but I would like to leave noble Lords with some words from Lord Brown at ping-pong during the passage of last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. He was pressing me all day, by every available means of communication, to press an amendment that would have made that legislation—which is now defunct, I understand—subject to our international obligations under the refugee convention. This is what he said in the Chamber that night:
“My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time—a hope which will be shared by every Member of this House”—
self-deprecating, as always—
“—to support this amendment. There are not many issues that it is worth going to the stake for, but surely the rule of law is one. I have spent 60 years of my life on it and do not propose to stop here. I suggest that your Lordships support this too”.—[Official Report, 27/4/22; col. 299.]
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to echo some of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I, for one—like, I am sure, many noble Lords—do not have any pleasure in this Bill receiving its Third Reading because it lacks kindness, compassion and humanity. It is also not going to be effective, regardless of the rhetoric from the Dispatch Box.
For many of us who have been on this Bill, the way the Home Office has acted towards this Chamber has been with complete discourteousness. We had a late impact assessment, a late child impact assessment and they tried to keep us here for long hours to do our job, which is to scrutinise effectively.
I say very gently to the Minister, even though he has been very robust in his defence of the Bill, that it is not the job of this House to come up with a whole new Bill; it is our job to come up with amendments which make a Bill more effective. I believe the amendments we have passed make the Bill more effective, more compassionate and kinder in how we treat some of the most vulnerable people who seek asylum on these shores. I say very gently to the Minister, as he takes this back and it goes to the other place and as he speaks to the Home Secretary: think about the amendments, which are trying to make the Bill more effective; and make sure that the Home Office comes back, hopefully, with a Bill from the other place with a bit more compassion, kindness and effectiveness, and a lot less rhetoric.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I rise to ask the Minister to make a correction. He said that there were divisions between the two sides of the House, but surely what has been true about this Bill is that large numbers of people on this side of the House have been very unhappy about it, have voted against it or have not voted with the Government. It is very important that the Minister takes back to the Home Office the fact that this Bill is not supported by the House as a whole, even by those of us who recognise the great need to have strong immigration control.
If I may say so, the Minister’s comments about the drawings on the wall made me very unhappy. If it were his child in that place, he would know that his child would have been uplifted by those paintings. What about the people who did those paintings? They did it to make life a bit better for those people who find themselves in a position that we all ought to thank God that neither we nor our children are in. Until the Government understand that feeling, and recognise the unhappiness across the House, they will have missed the whole tone of what this House is about.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is a bad Bill. We have done our best in your Lordships’ House to improve it. However, it is quite obvious that the Government, when we talk about kindness, compassion and humanity, seem to think that these are weaknesses. I argue that they are actually strengths. It is part of our British psyche to give that sort of kindness, so the Bill does not work for anybody in Britain. It certainly will not work for the Government to stop the boats. I just wish the Government had more common sense.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, while echoing all the sentiments that have been expressed, I will address the remarks of the Minister in introducing new material at the very beginning of his statement about the legislative consent Motion of the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd. The impression given by the Minister was that these were matters reserved to the British Government, and that therefore any legislative consent Motion from the Welsh Senedd was not appropriate and certainly not allowed. But the matter on which it passed the legislative consent Motion was a very narrow issue indeed about how children in Wales are to be looked after, and the responsibilities of local authorities towards those children, no matter where those children came from.
The piece of legislation that the Government are now putting a red line through is an Act of the Welsh Parliament that has been signed by the Head of State. It is one of which the Welsh people are truly proud, because it projects certain obligations on local authorities to commit to those children who find themselves in Wales, no matter where they come from. I wonder whether the Minister, in reminding us why the Government have overturned that piece of legislation, knows that they are actually overturning a piece of primary legislation that was passed five years ago and has universal support from all parties in Wales. It is that narrow point that the Government seek to overturn, not the Bill as a whole, even though the Welsh Parliament has of course expressed widespread concerns about the Bill as a whole. But that is what the legislative consent Motion was denied for: the overriding of a piece of primary legislation in that respect.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I associate those of us on these Benches with the kind words of the Minister and others around the House in relation to the sad news about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. He will be greatly missed.
Since Second Reading, we on these Benches have made clear our opposition to what we consider to be an illegal—to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew—and immoral Bill. If there were any way in which a Bill of this kind might have any chance of stopping the boats, it was by acting as a deterrent. Despite its proposed retrospectivity, record numbers crossed the channel in June and again this weekend, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. The Government’s own impact assessment describes a consensus among academics that the Bill is unlikely to deter those seeking sanctuary in the UK. Both in theory and in practice, the Bill appears destined not to achieve what it sets out to do.
Instead, as introduced into this House, the Bill undermines both the UK’s international reputation and the global consensus that mass migration needs to be dealt with through international co-operation, not unilateral action. Unamended, the Bill is all pain and no gain, potentially creating a permanent underclass of tens of thousands of people who cannot be removed, whose claims for asylum will not even be examined, let alone accepted, and who will be unable to work legally—a permanent drain on the taxpayer.
Contrary to what the Minister has said, some noble Lords, whose attendance during our lengthy debates on the Bill has been—how can I put it?—sporadic, claim that no alternative has been offered. Nothing could be further from reality, as the official record shows. For example, some 15 years ago claims for asylum were higher; the backlog of claims awaiting decisions was a fraction of what it is today; and the number of those being removed was far greater. The only immigration crisis in the UK today is one created by the Home Office, and a Bill targeted at criminalising asylum seekers, rather than people smugglers, is bound to fail.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start on a sombre note and join other noble Lords and the Minister in paying tribute to Lord Brown, who will be sorely missed by us all. He spent many an hour in the tearoom and elsewhere trying to explain various legal niceties to me in a very calm and dignified way, always treating me with a respect and courtesy I am not sure I deserved. He was a truly remarkable man and a pleasant individual. He will be missed by us all, and it is very sad that he has left us.
I will start with some usual courtesies before I make a couple of comments. I thank the Minister for the briefings he gave us. We have fundamentally disagreed on certain things. We were not pleased about the lateness of the impact assessments, as my noble friend Lady Lister made clear. To be fair to the Minister, even when we have fundamentally disagreed, he has always tried to brief me with respect to the Bill, and I am grateful for that. I thank his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for being similarly available whenever needed with respect to the Bill. Again, we disagreed on various things, but I appreciated his courtesy and help. I would be grateful if he could pass on my thanks to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Stewart, who at different times contributed to the Bill. I have to mention the Government Whip, who sat there all the way through with his normal face, which was always interested and agreeable. It was a pleasure to talk to him, if no one else at times. I also thank the Minister’s officials, who have been really helpful.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby is always a welcome contrast to my calm and unexcitable demeanour. He generates the rhetoric, drive and passion that I sometimes lack, and I am grateful for him encouraging me to have a bit more zeal at times—but seriously, it is good to have him alongside me. I am grateful to the officials in our office, Dan Stevens and Clare Scally, who have been very helpful, and my Back-Bench colleagues—I am always a bit nervous about this; it is like being at a wedding when you forget the aunt at the back—particularly my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti, Lord Dubs, Lady Lister, Lord Bach, Lord Cashman and Lord Hunt, and many others, for their support and help as the Bill has gone through. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his team for their co-operation, and Peers from across the House, some from unexpected quarters, who rang me to ask about different things. It has been a pleasure to work with them.
I want to start with some related points, including the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Having said what I said about the Minister, a couple of the things he said at the beginning were disappointing. There may have been times when some have thought it the right thing to do but, generally speaking, this House has not sought to block the Bill. It has recognised that the Commons has a right to pass its legislation. However, many in this House feel that the payback for that—for want of a better way of putting it—is that the other place has to respect that this place has a constitutional role to play as well. We will not be intimidated or made to back off from passing amendments that we think are important, or from saying where we think the Government have got it wrong.
I have been in government; it is hugely irritating to a Government to have this happen, but it sometimes works, in that better legislation is passed. If two and two does not make four, there is a problem. On a Bill as controversial and difficult as this, it is only right that large numbers of amendments be passed. It is only right to ask the other place—as a number of Peers have done—to give due consideration, in proper time, to the amendments we have passed and to adapt and make changes.
To be frank, it is difficult to know exactly what we should think about what will happen tomorrow, given that the only briefing we have had has gone to the newspapers and the media, telling us what to expect in the amendments to be published tomorrow or later today. Some may be things that we could agree to. Many in this place, including me, and a number of Members in the other place, will say that it cannot be right that journalists are ringing to ask your opinion, when you have no idea about it. They ask why you cannot comment and you have to say, “Well, I don’t know what the Government are suggesting”. That cannot be right, and it needs to be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a passionate point. Sometimes, if a Government get something wrong, as they have with the murals at the detention centre, the right thing to do is to stand up and say that it should not have happened and they will make sure it does not happen again.
As part of our co-operation and work together, the Minister organised a trip to Dover and to Western Jet Foil for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and myself. My noble friend and I went to the facility with the mural, where Mickey Mouse was painted on the wall. There was nothing offensive about it—nothing at all that anybody could take offence at. All it did was provide comfort and a sense of belonging to children in a desperate situation, which, presumably, is why somebody painted it. They did not paint it out of badness, or to make a political point or embarrass the Government. This was simply a human being, no doubt as an act of kindness, painting something on the wall to comfort children in a desperate situation.
In addition to the Minister’s response being wrong and disappointing, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point he made—he will correct me if I am wrong—in order to show that that attitude cannot prevail when considering the other amendments we have sent to another place, where they are generally dismissed out of hand. The Government may have given way on four, five or six—we do not know—but the 20 or so amendments sent there deserve proper consideration. If the Government object to them, they will need to give a proper explanation. Underlying what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, that is what we are asking for.
This place deserves its proper position within the functioning of the constitution of this country. If it does not have that, the consequence will be poorer legislation. In respect of an Illegal Migration Bill that is so controversial, the impact will be on innocent people, including children, who do not deserve it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will not address all the speeches, but I can certainly say that I agree with parts of almost all of them. Of course, noble Lords are entirely right that I and the department should think deeply about the amendments proposed, and we will. It is clear that there will be some changes, and I hope to work with noble Lords on that in due course.
Without Lord Brown, this House is very much a lesser place, and I am glad that we had an opportunity to reflect on that today.
Illegal Migration Bill
Tuesday 11th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 11 July 2023 - (11 Jul 2023)
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2, 6 to 9, 12, 20 and 22, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (o) in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22.
Lords amendments 23 and 30, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 31 to 36, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36.
Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.
Lords amendments 39 to 67, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 73 and 74, Government motions to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 73 and 74.
Lords amendment 90, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendment 93, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 95, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 102 to 104 and 107, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 19, 21, 24 to 29, 68 to 72, 75 to 89, 91, 92, 94, 96 to 101, 105, 106 and 108 to 114.
Robert Jenrick
This Bill is vital to stopping the boats and preventing the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel. The Bill as passed by this House made it unambiguously clear to illegal migrants and people smugglers alike that, if they come to this country by unlawful means, they will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and swiftly removed either to their home country or to a safe third country.
The Government brought forward a number of amendments in the Lords to enhance the Bill. These are largely of a technical nature, so I will not detain the House by setting these out now. Instead, I will confine my remarks to the non-Government amendments passed by the other place. I am grateful to the House of Lords for undertaking its proper role as a revising Chamber. Some of the changes made by the other place are, however, little short of wrecking amendments, and are not ones that the Government can support. There are a few honourable exceptions and I will deal with those first.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
As the Minister says, most of the amendments we are going to be debating and voting on later are wrecking amendments. Does he agree that none of these amendments addresses the fundamental need to address the actual incentives for people to cross the channel? That is what the Bill does and these amendments take that away.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would direct Members to the speech made in the other place by Lord Clarke. He said, very powerfully, that, as a former Home Secretary and long-standing Member of this House, and as someone who is interested in and knowledgeable about this issue, he sat through many hours of debate and did not hear, from any of the critics of the Bill, a single credible alternative to the Government’s approach. If hon. Members follow that logic, they need to get behind the Government and support them in delivering this approach.
Another point that Lord Clarke made, which I agree with, was that, if we fail to tackle this issue—if we dismiss the concerns of members of the public—we will see very serious consequences in the years ahead, with a fragmentation of community cohesion and a weakening of the successful multi-ethnic democracy that all of us, on both sides of the House, are proud of and want to see sustained for future generations.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
The Minister says that the other place put forward wrecking amendments, but is it not true that the other place proposed amendments that ensure that we honour treaties, respect our judiciary and ensure that the Home Office is acting within the law?
Robert Jenrick
I do not agree with that. There are a few important exceptions, which I will come on to. I hope that, in my remarks and in answering any questions, I will reassure the hon. Lady that, on the points of substance made by those who want to see the Bill proceed and the issue tackled, the Government are making the right changes to the Bill.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister says that no one has proposed a credible alternative, but four Lords amendments do. Lords amendment 102 proposes a
“Duty to establish safe and legal routes”.
Lords amendment 103 would amend the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to confer on the National Crime Agency specific functions to tackle cross-channel organised crime. And under Lords amendments 104 and 107, the Government would set up a 10-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking, working with foreign Governments. Do those four amendments not constitute a credible alternative?
Robert Jenrick
As it happens, I will come to each of those points later in my speech, if the hon. and learned Lady does not mind, but in each case, we are already doing what she asks us to do. The Bill has a specific provision in respect of safe and legal routes and, when we had this debate in this House previously, we agreed further to set out the details of that. As for the National Crime Agency, its officers who work on organised immigration crime—I met them in recent weeks in Belgium, France, Italy, Tunisia and Libya—would be very surprised to hear that the agency does not have the authority to act on organised immigration crime because those in some cases very brave men and women are doing that work every single day on our behalf already.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make a small amount of progress and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
I turn to the first issue of substance, which is Lords amendment 2. That would provide that the duty to make arrangements for removal applied to persons who entered illegally from the date of commencement of clause 2, rather than on or after 7 March 2023, as originally provided for in the Bill.
We acknowledge the position advanced by some in the other place and in this House about the retrospective effect of the Bill, but these Lords amendments go too far in resetting the clock. The closer we get to commencement of the Bill, the greater the risk that organised criminals and people smugglers will seek to exploit that, and we will see an increase in crossings as the deadline looms, which would only put more people at risk.
To guard against that, we have brought forward amendments in lieu to move the application of the duty from 7 March to the date of Royal Assent. The date of 7 March, however, would continue to apply for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s power to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purposes of the bans on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. That Government amendment in lieu has a particular advantage with respect to the concerns about modern slavery expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), but I will come to that in a moment.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Can the Minister tell me how many Afghan women have been able to avail themselves of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme phase 3 programme? That is the Government’s position on a safe and legal route. As we have understood from various Westminster Hall debates, we are looking at a handful in phase 3. Everything else refers to what has happened in 2021. I also draw his attention to the recent horrific drownings off Greece. This included a number of Afghan nationals and people from Pakistan-administered Kashmir. What really is the point of these ineffective, supposed safe routes?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Lady and I share the same objective: to ensure that the schemes that the Government have established are operationalised as quickly as possible, so that people who are eligible—perhaps including the women she is in contact with—can come to the United Kingdom, settle here and find sanctuary. It is incredibly important that the UK is a beacon in the world for resettlement schemes. We have already supported more than 20,000 people under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the ACRS to come to the United Kingdom. I appreciate her point that the numbers in recent months have been lower than she or we would like. One reason is that there is so little capacity in the UK today to properly house individuals, and one explanation for that is that the sheer number of individuals entering the country illegally on small boats has placed an intolerable pressure on our social housing and the contingency accommodation that we have available. If we are to bring further individuals to the UK—as we want to do and are continuing to do—they risk being housed in hotels, which is an unacceptable way to house vulnerable people and, in particular, families.
Debbie Abrahams
The Minister is being generous with his time. We in the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls have hundreds of civilians who would like a “homes for Afghans” scheme. These people are waiting and have already volunteered. This scheme is ready and it is equivalent to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, so I urge the Government to take us up on it and make sure that the supposed safe routes are actual safe routes.
Robert Jenrick
I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s comments. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has been superb and we should all be proud of it—I took part in it at one point. If it is possible to create a comparable scheme for Afghans, we should consider that. I know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who has responsibility for that issue, is considering it.
On the broader point about resettlement, the UK has a strong record in this regard. Of course, we would all like to go further, but since 2015 we have welcomed 550,000 people to this country on humanitarian grounds, mostly on resettlement schemes. We are one of the world’s leading countries for such schemes.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
While we are on the question of dates, does the Minister have any idea when the Supreme Court may consider and conclude its judgment? That is relevant not only to the question of the Bill’s progress, but to the question of the Parliament Act, in case that were to be needed.
Robert Jenrick
It is for the Court to determine, in the first instance, whether it intends to take up the appeal and at what time it will be heard. I can only point my hon. Friend to the final paragraph in the summary judgment from the Court of Appeal, which expressed the view of the three judges that this is a matter of great urgency and that it needs to be handled expeditiously. I hope that the Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear our appeal, does so swiftly, but that is a matter for the Supreme Court.
Gavin Robinson
The Minister will know that, from his perspective, I had a difficult approach to the Bill on Second Reading. When he embarked on addressing Lords amendment 2, he said he would now address the first Lords amendment of substance, yet Lords amendment 1 deals with our international obligations. We had the curious start to this Bill that it could not have a full declaration on the front of it about compatibility with some of those international obligations. Perhaps it was just a turn of phrase, but it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister not only addressed Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s approach to international legal obligations but outlined exactly what is contained within Lords amendment 1 that the Government take issue with.
Robert Jenrick
I will come back to that issue later in my remarks, but let me be clear, if further reassurance is required, that the Government take our international law obligations extremely seriously. We believe that all the matters outlined in the Bill are within our international legal obligations, and should the Bill or any aspect of it be legally challenged, we will contest that vigorously to defend the position we have set out.
I point the hon. Gentleman to one important element of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal, which was on this question: if a state such as the United Kingdom used another state and entered into a partnership, such as we have with Rwanda, for the purposes of asylum, would that be compatible with the refugee convention? I point out that all three judges agreed that that was compatible with the refugee convention. On arguably the central international law issue at stake, the Court of Appeal was clear that the Government’s approach is compatible with international law.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
The Minister has made that commitment about the refugee convention, but Lords amendment 1 says that the Bill should be read so as not to conflict with the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and the conventions on statelessness, the rights of the child and anti-trafficking. Why are the Government so opposed to that clarification and that clear statement on the face of the Bill, if we are the beacon and an adherent to international obligations and law?
Robert Jenrick
It is not normal practice to state that on the face of the Bill. It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.
Robert Jenrick
I will make some progress, because I appreciate that this is a relatively short debate. If the hon. and learned Lady does not mind, there are other questions I need to address.
Detention has attracted a great deal of interest from Members from all parts of the House, as indeed it did in the other place. Detention is a necessary part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for removal is accompanied by strong detention powers. We know from experience that once a person is released from detention, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, because they typically abscond. That is why the Bill restricts, but does not exclude, judicial challenges within the first 28 days of detention. That is so that illegal migrants can be processed and removed, rather than simply absconding on arrival. The powers cover family groups the same as others, so as to not provide a perverse incentive for people smugglers and migrants to co-opt unaccompanied children into bogus family groups to avoid detention, putting children at risk in the process.
Lords amendments 31 and 35 to 38 seek to restore the existing 24-hour limit on the detention of unaccompanied children and the 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women. I recognise that there are particular sensitivities around the detention of those cohorts, and we debated those at some length in earlier proceedings in this House. Recognising the health concerns around the detention of pregnant women and the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, we have brought forward amendments in lieu that maintain the existing 72-hour limit, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation, on the detention of pregnant women, and that enable the first-tier tribunal to consider granting immigration bail after eight days for unaccompanied children, rather than the 28 days provided for in the Bill. A number of Members of this House spoke out on the issue of pregnant women, but I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Sugg for campaigning in the other place.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows at first hand the impact this issue has on Dover and Kent—on our schools and other important local services. Given the proposed continuation of special measures for unaccompanied young people and now pregnant women, will he confirm that he will meet me and Kent colleagues to discuss the impact of these proposals, particularly bearing in mind the poor state of our local maternity services and the incredible pressure already being placed on our communities?
Robert Jenrick
I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend, as I have in the past. She knows that I have met local authority leaders in Kent on a number of occasions. I want to do everything I can to support them. Historically, they have borne a high burden as a result of their location adjacent to the points of entry, and that has placed some public services in Kent under a great deal of pressure. In the past 12 months, we have created the national scheme to ensure that unaccompanied children are moved across the country and that all local authorities play an equitable part in supporting them. We have also provided substantial financial incentives to local authorities to help them play their fair part.
I appreciate that nothing is ever as simple as that. Developing further capacity with local authority children’s homes or foster carers takes time, but I hope that the measures we have put in place will make a noticeable difference. Prior to the recent seasonal increase in individuals crossing the channel, we had successfully managed to clear all the UASC—unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—hotels that the Home Office had utilised, and I hope we can keep reliance upon them to an absolute minimum this summer and autumn.
In the case of unaccompanied children, the change I have just described will apply where an unaccompanied child is detained for the purpose of removal, and it aligns with the eight-day period for making a suspensive claim. That approach will ensure that we can continue to detain a person whom we suspect to be an adult, but who claims to be a child, pending the outcome of an age assessment.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is important for the Chamber to note that this is not really a concession; it is not even a time limit on the detention of children. It is the ability to apply for bail, as I understand it, after eight days. The person has to be aware of their rights and have access to the ability to challenge detention. It also applies only to a small cohort of children; the vast majority of children detained under the Bill will not have access to this process at all.
Robert Jenrick
Respectfully, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we are proposing. If a child who is a genuine child and not subject to age assessment arrives unaccompanied in the United Kingdom, they will be swiftly processed. They will then be sent out into the local authority care system as quickly as possible, until they turn 18. We will seek to remove unaccompanied children in two circumstances, as I set out when we last debated this in the House. The first is where we, the Home Office, manage to reunite them with parents in other countries, as we do in a small number of cases today. The second is where we, the Home Office, manage to return them to their home country, which is a safe country, and in most cases into the care of social services immediately upon arrival. Again, that happens already in a small number of cases. There is no intention to change present practice. We are taking the power to detain, if required, a young person in that situation for up to eight days, housed in age-appropriate accommodation to enable us to make that removal effective.
Robert Jenrick
If I may, I will give way in the first instance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
Vicky Ford
I am listening closely to what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I am thinking in particular about arrivals as well as leavers. Can he confirm that children who are clearly children will be placed in child-appropriate accommodation? Will all those who may or may not be children have appropriate safeguarding? If that is the case, when will we see that in writing?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s interest in the Bill. She and I come at this with exactly the same concern: to protect unaccompanied children. Any genuine child who comes into the United Kingdom will be swiftly taken into the local authority care system, which she is familiar with thanks to her former work as children’s Minister. To the extent that that child is in the detained estate, they will be housed only in age-appropriate accommodation.
Robert Jenrick
I will set out in a moment how that age-appropriate accommodation is determined in law today. I give way to my right hon. Friend one more time.
Vicky Ford
To dig deeper into that, the Minister has suggested that a child may be detained on arrival, which is not currently the case, but that if that happened, that would be in child-appropriate accommodation.
Robert Jenrick
That is correct. The law today is that a child can be detained for eight days for the purpose of examination—that is not routinely done by the Home Office. Today, a child is detained for 24 hours or less and, whether for 24 hours or, if the Home Office chose to make use of the power, for eight days, they are detained only in age-appropriate accommodation. It would be unlawful to house an under-18 in accommodation that did not meet the standard set out in law. I will come on in a moment to describe that standard.
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Bill and these amendments. He will understand that the matters he is discussing bring age verification into sharp focus. As he knows, I tabled an amendment on that, which the Government ultimately re-presented as an amendment of their own. Will he confirm that age verification measures will be obligatory and comprehensive so that we do not any longer get the nonsense of people pretending to be children in order to game the system?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is right. We take age assessment extremely seriously. As he knows, there are some young adults and individuals who abuse the system. Indeed, some are not so young—as I understand it, the oldest individual we have encountered who posed as a child was subsequently found to be 41 years of age. That is wrong as a matter of principle, and it is also a serious safeguarding risk to genuine children and all the caring people who are involved in supporting them, whether they be foster carers, teachers or members of the general public. We therefore have to take the issue seriously. That is why the Bill retains the power to detain an individual who is subject to age assessment for up to 28 days. During that period, the Home Office or local authorities would conduct age assessment. Today, that is done through the Merton system, which is proving to take longer than we would like, but which we want to be conducted within 28 days.
We are now taking advantage of the powers taken through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to begin to roll out scientific forms of age assessment. That will happen over the course of this year. Initially, it will happen concurrently with the Merton assessment. We want to ensure that that system is demonstrated to be robust and as swift as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will unite in common agreement that it is important that we weed out cases of abuse, because they pose such a risk. I am afraid that we have seen some very tragic instances such as the murder that occurred in Bournemouth at the behest of somebody who had posed as a child. The state has to do everything in its power to prevent that from happening again.
Robert Jenrick
If I may make some more progress, I will happily come to the hon. Gentleman later. I want to conclude the point that I was making to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on the detention periods and standard of accommodation, because that is important. I assure her, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has also taken an interest in the issue, that we will seek to detain unaccompanied children for the shortest possible period. Where there is no dispute that someone is under 18, they will be transferred to the local authority accommodation estate as quickly as possible. Where there is doubt about whether a person is indeed under 18 as they claim to be, they will be treated as a child while an age assessment is undertaken. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. That is set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 made under section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rule 11 provides that:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
If no such accommodation is available, they will not be detained and instead will be transferred to a local authority as soon as possible. I hope that provides my right hon. Friend with the assurance she seeks.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister quoted the Detention Centre Rules 2001, which are of course 22 years old. Rule 11 says:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
Although there is a checklist of about 65 things, virtually all of them are about fabric, freedom to practise religion and access to personal hygiene. Which of the rules contains support services that are relevant and age-appropriate to children?
Robert Jenrick
The rules are related to 2001, as my hon. Friend says, but as I understand it they have been updated since then. They have also been tested on a number of occasions in the courts, and the Home Office takes seriously its responsibility to live up to them. It would be unlawful if we were to accommodate an under-18 inappropriately. If I may, I will read out the other limbs of rule 11, entitled “Families and minors”. They are, first:
“Detained family members shall be entitled to enjoy family life at the detention centre save to the extent necessary in the interests of security and safety.
Secondly:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
Thirdly:
“Everything reasonably necessary for detained persons’ protection, safety and well-being and the maintenance and care of infants and children shall be provided.”
That, I think, is a comprehensive set of principles. It is one that has stood the test of time over the last 22 years. If it needed to be strengthened, of course we will do so, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take my strong assurance from the Dispatch Box that that is the standard of accommodation in which we intend to house anyone who is a minor. If that accommodation were not available, we would not house those individuals in detained accommodation at all.
Tim Loughton
The Minister is being generous. I will elaborate on this point if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where in those 65 rules are relevant child-appropriate support services such as social workers, child psychologists and others that would be necessary mentioned? Nothing that he has described guarantees that children will be in age-appropriate accommodation that has age-appropriate care. That is the point.
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to write to my hon. Friend detailing all the support that would be available. The point that I am making is that this is the existing law, and it has existed for more than 20 years. Nothing in the Bill changes that framework. The Home Office will rely on the existing framework that has been in place throughout the years, including when he was the children’s Minister, and it was considered satisfactory throughout that period.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on everything he is doing on this issue, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors. Is he convinced that everything he is doing will not create a perverse incentive for evil people smugglers to push unaccompanied minors on to boats to cross the English channel? Of course, once they are here, they can bring over their family and so on. Is he convinced that we will do everything we can to stop that perverse incentive?
Robert Jenrick
The changes that we are proposing in the Government amendments in lieu strike the right balance, whereby we preserve the intention of the scheme that lies at the heart of the Bill but provide some further protections for minors. My hon. Friend is right to make the broader point that more substantial changes to the Bill, such as those envisaged by some Members of the other place, would undermine its very purpose.
In considering each and every one of the Lords amendments, we must ensure that we do not drive a coach and horses through the core deterrent effect that we are trying to achieve. Why do we want that deterrent effect? Because we do not want anyone, whether an adult or a child, crossing the channel in small boats, placing themselves in danger and being under the support and control of people smugglers and human traffickers. We must keep in mind the original purpose of the Bill, and ensure that we do not do anything to undermine that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On age-appropriate accommodation and family life, could the Minister explain why he felt that the murals on the wall at the Kent intake unit damaged the deterrent effect of which he has just spoken? In that context, if parents are to continue to have family life with their children for the time that they are detained, will there be any chance of them having access to picture books to enable them to read to their children?
Robert Jenrick
I do not know whether the right hon. Member has been to any of the facilities, but we provide very high-quality facilities for families and children upon immediate arrival in the UK. I have made it a particular focus to ensure that we support those individuals appropriately, ensuring that conditions in those places are decent and compassionate at all times. The cohort of unaccompanied children who passed through the location that he describes last year was largely teenagers. We did not feel that the site was age-appropriate, but it contains a range of support for children and infants, including all the things that he has described. Nothing about the decoration of sites changes the fundamentals: if someone comes to the United Kingdom, we will treat them with decency and compassion at all times.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want the Minister to be explicit about the type of detention centre that we are talking about. For example, will children, whether unaccompanied or with their parents, be detained in detention centres such as Harmondsworth and Colnbrook? We agreed on a cross-party basis that they should never again be detained in those centres.
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman is particularly knowledgeable on this issue, because he represents immigration removal centres. It is not the Government’s intention that families or minors will be housed in those settings. Minors and families will be housed in age-appropriate accommodation, which is entirely separate and different in nature from the immigration removal centres that he represents. There are facilities such as those today, though not a large number of them. As part of the operationalisation of the Bill, we will need to invest in further facilities and ensure that they meet the standards set out in the detention rules as I have just described. I hope that gives him some reassurance.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way, but then I really must make progress, or else other Members will not have an opportunity to speak.
Vicky Ford
I thank my right hon. Friend. There is a huge amount of concern about how the Bill will be implemented. We thought that hotels would be only temporary, yet they seem to have carried on. The Minister has said that when a child comes in, they will be moved into local authority care as soon as possible. Under the Bill, what is the maximum amount of time that a child could wait before they are in that local authority care?
Robert Jenrick
The position today is that a child arrives in the United Kingdom and is immediately processed in an age-appropriate setting. We then seek to place them with local authorities. Only if local authority care is not immediately available do we deploy the Home Office UASC hotels. There have been incidences, such as last year, when young people were waiting in those hotels for a period of days. That is not our intention. The only limiting factor is the availability of local authority care to support them. If more local authorities were able to come forward—as I said, that is not simple because they have their own capacity constraints—we would not use those hotels at all. It is not our intention to detain minors for a long period for examination. We want them to flow straight out into local authority care, as is the right thing to do.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister is being pressed on the nature of accommodation or detention that children and young people will be held in. The spirit behind the Minister’s intention matters. Therefore, will he tell us if is it true that he gave orders to the asylum reception centre to paint over children’s cartoons? If so, why? Nobody believes that Mickey Mouse cartoons encourage or deter boats from arriving; they simply think that the Minister is not showing common decency towards vulnerable children.
Robert Jenrick
I have been clear in answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that we provide very high quality care at all the centres in which we support unaccompanied children. We did not think that the set-up in that particular unit was age-appropriate, because the majority of the individuals who passed through it unaccompanied last year were teenagers. That does not change the fundamentals that we support with decency and compassion anyone who comes to this country.
The right hon. Lady is missing the point: this Bill seeks to reduce the number of unaccompanied minors coming to the United Kingdom, precisely because we want to protect them and ensure that they are not victims of people smugglers and human traffickers. I take at face value her support for those individuals, but if she wanted to reduce that trade, she would support the Bill or come forward with a credible alternative. She has not done so. Her compassion is, to a degree, performative, because she does not come forward with alternatives that would genuinely support individuals.
Let me move on to modern slavery. The provisions in the Bill relating to that have been of particular concern to my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Chingford and Woodford Green. I welcome the opportunity in recent days to discuss with them the Lords amendments on this issue. It remains our view that there are clear opportunities to misuse modern slavery protections, and it is therefore essential that we take steps in the Bill to prevent misuse. The national referral mechanism rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% for detentions ending in 2019 to 73% in 2021. The referral rate has since fallen slightly to 65% for detentions ending between January and September. The 33% increase in NRM referrals from 2021 to 2022 has put the NRM under serious strain, which is only getting worse as the trends increase in one direction. There is significant and increasing pressure on public services, which is why we want to take action.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the discussions we have had recently. He knows that I have a problem with the statistics: he has, yet again, quoted the statistics that the Minister in the other place quoted as well, which imply that the percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has risen from 6% to 73%. It did not. He is talking about people who are subsequently detained for removal. Will he now confirm that the average percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has not changed over the last three years, and is around 7%?
Robert Jenrick
I think that my right hon. Friend and I agree that the point at which individuals misuse the NRM is the point at which the state tries to remove them from the country. Our concern is that there is a significant increase in the number of people misusing the NRM—and the good work that my right hon. Friend has done on this issue—to bring about a spurious, frivolous, last-minute way of frustrating their removal from the country. So the statistics I referred to are the most relevant statistics, because that is the point at which individuals are in the detained estate for the purpose of removal. Their removal from the United Kingdom is imminent and we are seeing a very high proportion of them using the NRM to try to delay that removal. Delay, as she knows from her great experience, is particularly relevant, because once someone has delayed their removal, they are liable to be bailed and to go back out into the community. Some will be very difficult to bring back into the detained estate, or may abscond and never be seen again. Even under the current system, that makes it extremely difficult to remove people.
Under the scheme envisaged by the Bill, we will seek to remove many of those people to a safer country such as Rwanda, while today we predominantly remove people back home to their own countries, such as Albania and Romania, so the incentive to misuse the NRM will be significantly higher. It is reasonable to assume that a very large number of individuals will make use of that as a route to frustrate the scheme. As I said earlier, that risks driving a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, which is a swift and speedy form of removal to act as a deterrent to prevent people making the crossing in the first place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
There are two elements here. First, the whole system can be massively speeded up, which is a fact of the NRM, straightaway. That was an obligation I was meant to have been given in the previous Bill, but it was never brought into the guidance. But the main point here is that nothing that happens outside the UK can be evidenced on this particular point. We are talking about the Minister’s fear that people are departing to within the UK and then subsequently making a claim. The real problem with the Bill right now—he knows I have concerns about this—is that much of the prosecution process against the traffickers can take place only because of the evidence given by those who have been trafficked. On Report, the presumption in the Bill suddenly changed dramatically—it was done without any notice. There is now a presumption that they do not need to be here at all, other than if there is some evidence that somehow they do, whereas before it was that in order to get that evidence, they do need to be here. Why are we knocking out the amendment, rather than amending it and specifying which categories are exempt? He runs the risk of people not giving evidence and not co-operating with the police, and us not getting prosecutions. If they are going to be cleared out of the UK while giving evidence—this is the point—the reality is that they will stop doing so, because they will be in danger of being picked up by the traffickers again outside the UK. Will he therefore rethink this and put something on the face of the Bill to define those who are exempt?
Robert Jenrick
First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead for their advice and wise counsel. We have sought to make changes and to listen to their point of view. That is why we brought forward two significant changes. One, as I have outlined, with respect to retrospection, means that the cohort of individuals who entered the United Kingdom from 7 March to Royal Assent who have not been in the detained estate and are then, if you like, in the community at large—in many cases they are living in supported accommodation and in some cases are liable to exploitation by human traffickers and other criminals—will now not be included in the full extent of the Bill’s provisions and so can be supported in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodgreen wishes. That has significantly reduced the pool of individuals he has concerns about. We are also—I will come on to this in a moment—committing to bringing forward statutory guidance, which I hope will provide further reassurance on the question of how law enforcement authorities would interact with victims of modern slavery to ensure that they can be appropriately supported, and have the time they need to recover and bring forward their claims so that we can all achieve our shared objective, which is the prosecution of human traffickers.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I recognise that the Minister has moved in some measure on these issues and I am grateful for that, but may I return to the point about the statutory guidance? Surely, given that we all accept that we will only deal with the organised criminals who run modern slavery with the co-operation of their victims, we cannot proceed with the clause as it currently stands without knowing what the statutory guidance will be? It was well known that this was going to be an issue, so I am surprised, frankly, that the draft statutory guidance has not been available to us today. That might well have reassured us sufficiently to support the Minister in his contention. As it is, that is still left hanging in the air. When will we see that statutory guidance?
Robert Jenrick
Let me answer my hon. Friend’s questions by setting out what will be contained in the statutory guidance. The operation of the exception for potential victims of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of co-operating with law enforcement agencies in connection with the investigation of a trafficking offence will be subject to statutory guidance. The guidance will provide that an individual who has arrived in the UK illegally and has a positive reasonable grounds decision based on an incident that has taken place in the UK, will be afforded 30 days from that positive decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation relating to their exploitation. They will not be removed within that period, which accords them with protections that are equivalent to those set out in the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Should they continue to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and protections of the NRM. Should further time be required in addition to the 30 days, that period is extendable so that the police and the victim have the time necessary to ensure that traffickers are brought to justice. I hope that that answers his question. I appreciate his desire to see the letter of the statutory guidance, and I will take that away, but that is the essence of it—the position that mirrors the ECAT provisions.
Sir Robert Neill
When will that come into force? Surely, we have to have that in force before the provisions in the Bill come into force. Can he give us that assurance and confirmation?
Robert Jenrick
It is our intention that the statutory guidance will be provided and in place for the commencement of the Bill. I hope that that also answers the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the fact that he feels that previous assurances in prior legislation were not fully delivered.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I welcome some of the moves the Government have made and I support the principles of what the Bill is trying to do. However, this is a really significant problem of the Government cutting off their nose to spite their face. The positive we have is that when victims give evidence and a prosecution takes place, it cuts down the likelihood that traffickers will be allowed to traffic boats across. When that is turned around, it contradicts the purpose of the Bill. The point I made to the Minister earlier was that the sudden change to the presumption power of the Secretary of State is really where the problem arises. Surely the way to deal with that is not through the guidance mechanism, but to ensure, on the face of the Bill, that that presumption is restricted, and clearly restricted. He talks about the intention of the guidance. I was given that assurance on the other Bill in December. No guidance emerged subsequently so he will forgive me, having sat in Government myself, if I do not always take the word of the Government absolutely as a categorical assurance. The only way we can get this is by doing something on the face of the Bill. The amendment, as amended, would really help enormously to reassure people and achieve the Government’s objective, which is more prosecutions and fewer boats.
Robert Jenrick
I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, but I hope he will accept that we intend to bring forward the statutory guidance and that it will set out the points I have just described. They do accord with ECAT. I appreciate that there are those who would like a longer period than 30 days, but that seems a reasonable place to settle, given that that is what the framers of ECAT themselves chose as the period for recovery and for bringing forward claims.
Mrs May
I am just a little confused and I hope my right hon. Friend can help me. He says that the Government want to bring forward the guidance, yet they oppose Lords amendment 57. Lords amendment 57, as I read it, would confer a power on the Secretary of State
“by regulations to make provision about the circumstances in which it is necessary for a person present in the UK to provide cooperation of the kind mentioned”
earlier in the clause. That is precisely the guidance he is now saying he will bring in, so why is he opposing Lords amendment 57?
Robert Jenrick
We do not need that power, so the amendment is superfluous; we already have the power to bring forward statutory guidance. It was our intention to do that. The guidance is being drafted, and it will set out what I have detailed.
Robert Jenrick
I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I feel that I have to make progress now.
Lords amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93 are all the more unnecessary as the Bill already affords adequate protections against removal to a country that is unsafe for a particular person. That brings me to Lords amendment 23, about the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. Let me say unambiguously that we treat the safety of LGBT people with the utmost seriousness, and do not want to do anything that would in any way compromise their safety and security. I regret to say that Lords amendment 23, though clearly well intentioned, misunderstands the approach taken in the Bill. With the exception of EU and European economic area nationals and those of Switzerland and Albania, people will not be returned to their home country if they make a protection claim. If a person is issued with a third-country removal notice, they can challenge their removal to the specified country on the basis that they would face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm there, including persecution. If a serious harm suspensive claim is refused, the person has an avenue of appeal to the upper tribunal. The amendment is well meant, but the concerns that underpin it are unfounded. We take pride in the UK’s support for LGBT communities globally, and our commitment to this cause remains unwavering.
Joanna Cherry
Rwanda has no laws prohibiting discrimination against same-sex attracted people, and people whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth. Can the Minister not understand why an LGBT person might rather come to the UK for asylum, where we have such anti-discrimination laws, than be sent somewhere like Rwanda, which does not?
Robert Jenrick
I understand the hon. and learned Lady’s point. I say two things in response. First, the premise of asylum claims being handled in safe third countries is that those countries must be safe. Through our partnership with the Government of Rwanda, we have done work to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. That has been tested by the courts, and remains an ongoing matter for the courts. Secondly, we placed a safeguard in the scheme: a person can claim that their removal to that country would put them at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, which includes persecution. I completely understand why the hon. and learned Lady says what she does, and the legitimate concern that she voices, but I do not think that the instance that she raises is founded in reality. If it were, we would take that very seriously indeed, because the Government do not want to do anything to compromise the safety and security of LGBT people.
In response to Lords amendments 73 and 74 about the power to amend the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”, we have sought to provide further assurance by bringing forward an amendment in lieu to ensure that the power cannot be used to remove the provisions in clause 38(4) that set out what constitutes serious and irreversible harm.
Lords amendments 8 and 9 undermine a key plank of the Bill, which is the provision under which asylum and relevant human rights claims can be declared inadmissible. Lords amendment 8 would incentivise people smugglers to prioritise unaccompanied children, which would put more young lives at risk and split more families. Amendment 9 would simply afford illegal entrants yet another opportunity of playing the system and dragging things out as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum.
Lords amendment 50 seeks to limit the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority accommodation and into accommodation provided or arranged by the Secretary of State, by providing that the Secretary of State may do so only where that is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. Again, the amendment is unnecessary and duplicates existing law. Under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Home Secretary is already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child when making a decision to exercise the “vice versa” power.
Moving on to safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102 relates to clause 59, which requires the Home Secretary, within six months of Royal Assent, to prepare and publish a report on the safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the UK, including any proposed additional safe and legal routes. Lords amendment 102 would in effect mandate that such additional safe and legal routes be brought into being within two months of the publication of the clause 59 report. Again, the amendment is unnecessary. As I set out on Report in April, we will implement any proposed new routes as soon as practicable, and in any event by the end of 2024.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I have listened very carefully to everything that the Minister has said on this subject, and I know that he is sincere in his intentions. We agree on the need for a quota when it comes to safe and legal routes, but will he accept that 18 months hence is an inordinately long time, bearing in mind that the Bill will have come into force? While we might not be able to have complete synchronicity of new routes with the coming into force of this important Bill, can we at least have a much greater sense of urgency, and bring forward proposals for safe and legal routes much sooner than the end of next year?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. and learned Friend and I share a concern on this issue. We want to bring forward any new routes as soon as is practical; he has my assurance, and that of the Government, that we will move as quickly as we can. I do not think it is practicable for new routes to be brought into being within two months of the publication of the report provided for in clause 59. It inevitably takes time to work with partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on developing a credible scheme, and to implement it. It is important that we give the Home Office the necessary time. However, I have been very clear that we will move as quickly as possible. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) says that we have had 13 years; more humanitarian visas were issued last year by this Conservative Government than probably any Government since the second world war. Since 2015, under a majority Conservative Government, 550,000 people have entered the UK on humanitarian grounds. That compares extremely favourably with the record of the Government of which she was a member.
Hilary Benn
The Government have said that they are committed to bringing forward safe, legal routes, but that they will not do that until they have stopped the boats. Does the Minister not recognise that one thing that the Government could do that would help stop the boats is bring forward safe, legal routes?
Robert Jenrick
No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is a role for safe, legal routes, and I want the UK to be respected internationally for the way in which we support those seeking sanctuary. That is what we have ensured in recent years by creating world-leading schemes, such as those for Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong, and indeed there is also the global scheme, which is operated by the UNHCR. I do not accept the argument that I think he is advancing, which is that if we produce a larger safe and legal route to the United Kingdom, it will lead to a reduction in the number of individuals crossing illegally in small boats. The individuals we would likely bring to the United Kingdom under a safe and legal route are quite different, in the main, from those coming across in small boats. Most of our small boat arrivals are young men in their 20s and 30s who are already in a place of safety—France—with a fully functioning asylum system. The kind of scheme the Government envisage for safe and legal routes is one where we take families and vulnerable people directly from conflict zones or refugee camps elsewhere in the world. That is a very different system from offering a safe and legal route to predominantly young men in a place of safety to come to the United Kingdom. That does not denude the value of having safe and legal routes, but the purpose is different.
Lords amendment 103 relates to the functions of the National Crime Agency, and I am afraid that it just amounts to legislative grandstanding. The NCA’s statutory functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime. As such, the amendment simply risks undermining the operational independence of the director general by tying his hands as to how to organise the NCA to best deliver its objectives. As I said in answer to an earlier question, our colleagues at the NCA who work every day on organised immigration crime would be very surprised to hear the contention that they are not focused on this work, because they certainly are.
Finally, Lords amendment 104, which was tabled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is well-meaning but unnecessary. It is a distraction from the immediate priority of stopping the boats and tackling the threat to life arising from dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings. That is the aim of the Bill, and the Lords amendment does not reflect the actions that we have already taken through cross-Government initiatives to tackle the refugee crisis and through the ongoing work to deliver our strategic approach to tackling human trafficking. Moreover, it does not recognise how this country has responded to the result of crises, offering sanctuary to over 550,000 people through safe and legal routes since 2015.
By getting a grip on illegal migration, we aim to reduce the pressure that it places on our public services and on community cohesion and to increase the capacity to support those who seek sanctuary here in the UK. The stop-the-boats Bill is designed to ensure that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world by using our finite resources on those who truly need it.
In conclusion, it is vital that this Bill reaches the statute book quickly and in a form that will stop the boats. It is riddled with exceptions and get-out clauses placed in it by the other place. If they remain, it will simply not work. We have to send a clear message back to the other place that it is now their turn to think again and to respect the will of the elected House. The public expect us to tackle this issue, to secure our borders and to stop the boats.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am looking to see whether people are standing who did not put in to speak, and there are a couple at least. Thank you very much. You can resume your seats.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance (No. 2) Act 2023
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2023
National Security Act 2023.
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 12th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 159-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments and Reasons - (12 Jul 2023)
20:32 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 151 - Motion A1 agreed.
22:08 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 151 - Motion F1 agreed.
22:21 - Division on Motion G1 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 143 - Motion agreed.
22:33 - Division on Motion J1. - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 141 - Motion agreed.
22:45 - Division on Motion K1 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 144 - Motion K1 agreed.
22:59 - Division on Motion P1 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 140 - Motion P1 agreed.
23:29 - Division on Motion W1 - Ayes: 174 / Noes: 122 - Motion W1 agreed.
00:05 - Division on Motion X1 - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 114 - Motion X1 agreed.
00:18 - Division on Motion Y1 - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 107 - Motion Y1 agreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will, with the leave of the House, also speak to Motions D, S, T, U and V.
The Lords amendments do significant damage to the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Bill will only prevent and deter illegal migration if persons who meet the conditions in Clause 2 are swiftly returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. For that to happen, we must end the cycle of late, repeated and spurious legal challenges. The Lords amendments will perpetuate that cycle.
Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1, which would replace Clause 1 with a new clause that sets out that nothing in the Act shall
“require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom under”
the five international agreements specified in the amendment.
As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government take their international obligations, including under the ECHR, very seriously, and there is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the UK’s international obligations. The only way to break the business model of the criminal gangs and to deter illegal migrants is if it is abundantly clear that the only outcome of illegal entry is not a new life in the UK. Therefore, it is essential that we take bold steps. Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Government are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with convention rights.
As my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out on Report, Lords Amendment 1 is also objectionable from a constitutional perspective. In the United Kingdom, we follow a dualist approach, whereby international law is integrated into domestic law solely through parliamentary legislation. The Government are often criticised for rushing legislation and not allowing adequate scrutiny. Here, the tables are turned. Amendment 1 has profound and wide-ranging implications. It should not be shoehorned into this Bill without proper consideration of its consequences and an opportunity for Parliament properly to scrutinise the significance of such a step. If a future Government want to incorporate into domestic law the refugee convention or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is open for them to do so, but that would be a significant legislative undertaking and a profound change to our domestic legal landscape. Amendment 1 is not the way to do it.
I turn to Motion S and Amendments 74B and 74C from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which relate to the meaning of serious and irreversible harm. Serious harm suspensive claims recognise that there may be a clear reason as to why a person cannot be removed to a particular third country specified in the removal notice, while any human rights claim in respect of a removal—or related judicial review, if that took place following removal—is resolved. These claims must be based on the fact that the person would face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed for such a temporary period. This test reflects the approach and terms on which the European Court of Human Rights may decide to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of their rules of court. It is fitting that we use it here in an analogous situation.
We also continue to believe that it is helpful to decision- makers and the courts to set out in the Bill specific examples of harm that do not, or are unlikely to, constitute serious and irreversible harm. This will ensure a consistent approach in the determination of claims by the Home Office and appeals by the Upper Tribunal. That said, we have reflected on the debates on these clauses in this House and revisited the recommendations from the Constitution Committee. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his time in discussing his concerns. As a result, we have brought forward an amendment in lieu which limits the power by regulations to amend the meaning of serious and irreversible harm, such that the power cannot be used to remove the existing examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm.
I reiterate two points made by my noble friend Lord Stewart on Report. First, Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm which constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of a suspensive claim. Secondly, if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them living in a specified third country for the relevant period without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim, in line with the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran). With these assurances and the amendment in lieu, I hope that I have been able to address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and he would feel able to support Motion S.
In relation to Motions T and U, we remain firmly of the view that it is right to place limitations on judicial review challenges to removal. We are not preventing such challenges but saying that they should not suspend removal. The Bill includes bespoke provisions for removal condition suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims, which themselves afford appropriate opportunities for a person to challenge their removal before it takes place. Given these remedies, it is entirely appropriate that other legal challenges should be non-suspensive.
Finally, in relation to Motion V, I again reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the Bill, in enabling a court to overturn an age assessment decision on the basis that it is wrong in law, already covers challenges based on Wednesbury unreasonableness. It therefore follows that Lords Amendment 95 is not needed.
The House of Commons has disagreed with Lords Amendments 1, 73, 90, 93 and 95 by strong majorities in each case. It has proposed Amendment 74A in lieu of Lords Amendments 73 and 74, which addresses one of the key concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I therefore invite the House to agree the government Motions in this group. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu—
“Introduction
In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions, and any acts and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under-
(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;
(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;
(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;
(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A. Ministers suggest that our Amendment 1, Amendment 7 as a consequential and Amendment 90 are wrecking and unnecessary. These criticisms are contradictory. If the Government take their international obligations so seriously, why should they be afraid to ensure that those charged with operating this proposed legislation, which clearly impacts on the rights of vulnerable people, understand that Ministers intend not to violate these rights? Why should Ministers have been unable to make a statement of their belief in ECHR compatibility in the Bill?
Alongside that strange logic comes a pseudo-legal argument from the Mickey Mouse school of jurisprudence that even to reference binding international obligations in domestic instruments somehow offends the sanctity of our dualist system. This is nonsense. It is because of our system, whereby international obligations signed by Ministers do not automatically become directly enforceable domestically without parliamentary approval, that successive Governments of both stripes have had to refer to various treaties or their contents in a host of relevant domestic measures. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 expressly gave primacy to the refugee convention. In 2009, in the EN Serbia case, the Court of Appeal found that that provision did not constitute informal or backdoor incorporation or undermine the principle of dualism, which is designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty and not to insulate Governments from their obligations. The Children Act 1989 takes its central best interests of the child principle directly from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—two of numerous precedents.
The treaties in our Amendment 1 were chosen by truly cross-party, all-party and non-party consensus for relevance to the people, measures and rights engaged by this Bill. The Government’s real objection, and to consequential Amendment 7 and Amendment 90, is that no one, especially His Majesty’s judges, should be able to second-guess Home Office decisions. That is simply contrary to the rule of law on which any civilised society, let alone a great democracy, must be built. None the less, in the spirit of respectful dialogue, we have listened, compromised and amended our new Clause 1, softening its requirement to require having regard to the various conventions when interpreting the Bill. There is no way that that can now be regarded as incorporation rather than interpretation.
Further, the consequential Amendment 7 is reformulated so that the Section 2 duty to remove a person will stand, notwithstanding an application for judicial review, if a court refuses permission, or even just refuses to make an interim injunction. To respond further to concerns from the other place and the Benches opposite about so-called protracted legal knots, interim relief preventing a removal is to be granted under our new version of Amendments 90 only after the Secretary of State has had a reasonable opportunity to tell a court why this should not happen. Far from being wrecking amendments, these are wholly reasonable compromises to restore some semblance of legality and respect for international obligations, domestic judges and the rule of law. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, there are three reasons we should be stubborn about not allowing the Bill to go through. The first is that this was not in the Tory Party manifesto: we do not have a duty to pass it. Secondly, Rwanda is not a safe country. Thirdly, we cannot pass legislation that allows the Government to break the law; that does not make sense.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I support the amended version of Clause 1, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Whether or not Parliament intends to incorporate international treaties within our own law depends on the wording. The point was made on Report that the noble Baroness’s previous wording had no reference to interpretation. It seems to me quite clear now that the emphasis has been put on having regard to the provisions in these international treaties which bind this country for the purposes of interpreting this Act. I consider that this falls plainly on the right side of the line.
As for my own amendment to Motion S, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, has addressed, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and reasonableness over the discussions concerning this. I was principally concerned that those who are entitled to the protection of the convention because of a well-founded fear of persecution in the country stated in the removal notice should not have to have an additional test of irreversible harm in order to prevent removal there. The assurances the noble Lord has given have satisfied me over that concern, particularly in relation to the principles in the case to which he drew attention, HJ (Iran) for LGBT refugees. My concerns have been satisfied and for that reason I will not oppose the Motion of the Government on this point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, briefly, we on these Benches support all the Motions to amend the government Motions. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has well made the point that even if one could have argued that the original Amendment 1 was a backdoor incorporation—an argument I always found unpersuasive—that objection certainly cannot be made of the new text of Motion A1, which is clearly nothing of the sort. The Prime Minister has been at the NATO summit in Vilnius upholding international law against breaches through Russian aggression. Indeed, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 cited the rule of law at one of the core principles. The Prime Minister was also recently at the Council of Europe summit. Again, the core values in the declaration were the threats to human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, talked about how this amendment
“is firmly in the Conservative tradition of strengthening, not undermining, the international rule of law”.—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 704.]
She reminded noble Lords that
“Conservative Governments were instrumental in creating the first four conventions listed in the amendment”.
Finally, on Amendment 93, we still have concerns, as do doctors, about the proposals in the Bill for as yet unproven medical age assessments. Amendment 93 provides the most basic safety net for those undergoing age assessment: the right to appeal a judgment. Removing that right will not deter any smugglers, or child refugees in need of appropriate safety and protection. We urge support for the amendment Motions.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I support Motion A1 but will speak more particularly to Motion U1 in my name, to which the noble Baroness just referred. It proposes that if an age-assessment judicial review is in progress, removal should be delayed until its completion. I welcome comments from Ministers that those subject to an age dispute will be accommodated in an age-appropriate setting here in the UK, but can the Minister confirm that will be the case in a third country? Will Rwanda, for example, be informed that a young person is subject to an age dispute, and will the Rwandan Government then be required by the UK to keep that person separate from other adult residents and to supervise them properly as a child until the courts have made a judgment?
The Secretary of State has a legal duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Can the Minister therefore say how the welfare of a child will be protected by not allowing judicial review to act as a temporary delay to their removal? The Government appear to be arguing that when a child legally challenges an age assessment, it is simply a spurious attempt to use legal methods to postpone removal. However, as we know, the majority of children are found to be children after local authority assessments, so it is more likely that what is happening is an attempt to protect their proper right to be treated as a child. Can the Minister therefore take the opportunity at least to confirm that when an individual’s age is disputed, they will not be subject to removal before having met with a social worker and a child protection team for a more comprehensive age-assessment process?
The determination that an individual may be a child and therefore could deserve all the rights a child is due should and must be reason enough to prevent their removal. When the implications for children are so grave and lifelong, it seems that to not delay a child’s removal from the UK until those questions are resolved is immoral. I plead with the Government to recognise this as a failure of safeguarding, which we are all trying to treat at the highest possible standard. However, in view of the lateness of the hour when we are likely to reach a vote on this matter, and the many other matters your Lordships’ House has to deal with tonight, I am not minded at present to press this Motion to a Division.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a pseudo-lawyer, or perhaps as Mickey Mouse. I am not entirely convinced that framing the debate in that way is appropriate.
I have a number of things to say. First, the fact that Motion A1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been rephrased as it has been, shows that those of us who argued that the previous version was substantive, and not interpretative, were right. However, the Motion as redrafted is also improper because it does two things—here I again respectfully part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He read the Motion but omitted words in its second line. Let us have a look at what it actually says:
“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions”—
that refers to the provisions in the Bill—
“and any act and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply”.
Even now, it is not properly an interpretative provision, because it does not just apply to interpreting the words; it is also said to apply to any acts and omissions made under the Act, as it will become. That still has substantive consequences, and the effect is still—this time in an evening rather than in an afternoon—that we are effectively incorporating these treaties into our domestic law.
That is why the words
“and any acts and omissions made as a result”
are still objectionable, but the rest of it, while maybe not objectionable, is unnecessary. As I mentioned on Report, the law of this country has always been that, in the absence of express words to the contrary, all statutes are presumed to be in accordance with our international obligations. That was most recently set out by Lord Dyson, speaking for the Supreme Court in the Assange case, when he said that
“there is no doubt that there is a ‘strong presumption’ in favour of interpreting an English statute in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations”.
The fact that we now have to go through the contortions of trying to fit this reformulated amendment into interpretation when it still has substantive consequences shows that this is a road down which we should not be going at all. In so far as the intention is that legislation should be interpreted in line with our international commitments, that is already part of the law. In so far as it says that
“any acts and omissions made as a result”
of this Bill are to be so interpreted, that has substantive consequences.
I respectfully suggest that those points are not those of a pseudo-lawyer, nor are they Mickey Mouse points. If I may finish where I began, it is somewhat unfortunate that that is how they are being described.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I support entirely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. The key words in this reformulated amendment are “In interpreting this Act” and “regard”. It would not write these conventions into our law, as the previous amendment was in danger of doing. This a pure interpretation provision, and it is entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions. The assumption is that the United Kingdom, having signed up to the conventions, will respect them in the formulation of its provisions in our domestic law. The court applies that principle in finding a meaning of the words before it in statutory instruments and in primary legislation. This is entirely in accordance with the way the courts approach the matter. The key words are, “In interpreting this Act”, and “regard”. It is not binding; it is just that regard will be had. That is the way the provision should read. I support the amendment because it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1 and the various provisions that follow from it. Without getting into the legal arguments that have just been articulated by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, I support the fact that the key words are the first few words, in particular to try to deal with the criticism that was made of the previous amendment.
The only point I would add is that it is important for us to have something like this in the Bill given the criticism, concern and questions that have been raised about the Bill by many well-respected international organisations, bodies and individuals. We all expect something to be done about the challenge that we face, but we want it done in a way which enhances our international reputation and conforms to the various international treaties and our responsibilities. That is why Motion A1 is particularly important and should be supported.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch this group has been dealt with and for the contributions from across the Chamber. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that I disagree with her interpretation and agree with that of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Frankly, if one looks at Amendment 1B, one can see that “regard” must be read alongside “intended to comply”, so this revised amendment is equally problematic. The point my noble friend Lord Wolfson made is entirely right: it amounts to an acceptance that the earlier version of the amendment would also have been a very significant constitutional innovation, predicated on the back of an amendment to the Bill and a massive change to our constitutional framework. I am afraid that I therefore disagree with the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 1B.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, particularly to the noble and learned Lords who gave their ruling on the backdoor incorporation point. Of course, Section 2 of the 1993 Act was much stouter than either version of our Amendment 1.
Dr King, not a judge but a man of God, famously said:
“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important”.
Across this House yesterday, we pleaded for kindness. Today, we come with a more modest plea: for the rule of law. I have moved the Motion and ask the House to approve it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A to 22Q in lieu.
“Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the date which is for the time being specified in—
(a) section 2(3) (duty to remove: date of entry or arrival in the United Kingdom);
(b) section 4(7)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act);
(c) section 5(12)(a) or (14)(a) (application to claims made on or after passing of this Act).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may make consequential amendments to this Act or any other enactment.
(3) Provision made by virtue of subsection (2) may, in particular, amend this Act or any other enactment to modify the operation of a provision which would otherwise apply to a person who meets, or has ever met, the condition in section 2(3) (including to enable that provision to operate as if an amendment to section 2(3) had not been made).
(4) An amendment made by virtue of subsection (1) may have the effect that a provision mentioned in that subsection specifies—
(a) a particular calendar date, or
(b) a date which is determined by the occurrence of a particular event (for example the coming into force of a provision of this Act, generally or for a particular purpose).
(5) But such an amendment may not have the effect that the provision specifies a date which is earlier than the date specified before the amendment was made.”
“(5) For the purposes of this section and section 16, a person (“C”) is an unaccompanied child if—
(a) C meets the four conditions in section 2, reading subsection (3) of that section as if it referred to a person entering or arriving in the United Kingdom as mentioned in subsection (2) of that section on or after 7 March 2023,
(b) C is under the age of 18, and
(c) at the time of C’s entry or arrival in the United Kingdom by virtue of which C meets the condition in section 2(3), no individual (whether or not a parent of C) who was aged 18 or over had care of C.”
“(4) Until section 2(1) comes into force in relation to a person, section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 has effect in relation to that person as if it also permitted the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter or limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom in any other circumstances, subject as follows.
(5) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies leaves or is removed from the United Kingdom after having become such a person, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to enter the United Kingdom if the person returns to the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(3) of that Act).
(6) If a person in relation to whom section 8AA of the Immigration Act 1971 applies is given limited leave to enter the United Kingdom under subsection (3) of that section, subsection (4) of this section does not permit the Secretary of State to give the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom (but see section 8AA(4) of that Act).
(7) Any leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given to a person by virtue of subsection (4) is to be disregarded in determining, for the purposes of this Act or any other enactment, whether the person meets the four conditions in section 2.”
“(za) section (Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc) (amendment of date in section 2(3) etc);”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions F and G.
Motion B deals with the retrospective application of the duty to make arrangements for removal. We have reflected on the arguments put forward on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on Report. We have brought forward Amendments 22A and 22Q in lieu. Noble Lords will recall that the Lords amendments sought to move the operative date of the Clause 2 duty from 7 March this year to the date of that clause’s commencement. We believe that such a change carries a significant risk of there being a surge in channel crossings—a fire sale, if you will—as we approach the commencement date. To guard against this, the amendments in lieu instead provide for the duty to remove to apply to a person who enters the United Kingdom unlawfully from the date of this Bill’s Royal Assent.
We will keep this under review ahead of the Bill’s implementation, as we have included a reserve power to change the new operative date by regulations. This could, for example, enable us to focus the initial implementation of the Bill on those who arrived here illegally via small boats rather than by other means. I should stress that the 7 March date will continue to apply for the purpose of the power conferred on the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purpose of the ban on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. I trust that this compromise approach will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.
Motion F relates to Lords Amendment 9, moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord German. This relates to the issue of the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims within the UK system. It remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be admissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country for their asylum claims to be processed is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31—a point that I mentioned a moment ago. This amendment would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out in an attempt to reach a six-month cut-off date. This amendment was rejected by the Commons by a strong majority of 76. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to agree to Motion F.
Finally, Motion G relates to Lords Amendment 23, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The United Kingdom is a stout defender of LGBT communities across the globe. Our commitment to this cause remains unwavering. So, although I understand and sympathise with the noble and learned Lord’s desire to protect LGBT people who would face persecution were they to be sent to one of the countries listed in the amendment, I remain strongly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already delivers the protections that he seeks.
We are committed to the principle of non-refoulement, as a Jamaican national who makes a protection claim will not be returned to Jamaica. Were they to be fearful of being at real risk of suffering serious and irreversible harm, and were they to be removed to a specified third country, they would be able to make a serious harm suspensive claim. As I have previously indicated, in considering such a claim, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran) would be applied such that if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them from living in the specified third country without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim.
I hope the noble and learned Lord has been able to reflect on my assurances and on the outcome of the vote yesterday in the other place, and that he now feels able to support Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22R as an amendment to Amendment 22B—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I hope I will be allowed a moment when referring to my Motion B1 and Amendment 22R on page 5 of the Marshalled List to pay a very short tribute to the staff of the Public Bill Office. I was treated very kindly by a very tolerant member of staff there when I was being completely dysfunctional late last night and early this morning. They have been put under enormous pressure, and I think we should appreciate that. It may have felt to them like bullying, I am afraid.
I do not know why we have been forced to consider these amendments today, or indeed before the Summer Recess. The very earliest this Bill could ever be used would be after the Supreme Court decision in October, or whenever that is given; we do not know the exact date. Indeed, that may not be the end of the litigation in any event. I do not understand why we were not left to consider this in the sittings in September. I hope we will not be put in this position again.
I now turn to my Motion. This is where I express my genuine gratitude to the Government—to the Minister and others, including the Chief Whip—because they have made, in my view, a correct and noble concession to the objections that this House voted for in an amendment I moved on retrospectivity, pointing out as I did at the time that retrospectivity, though not a “never”, is frowned on in our law.
My Motion on page 5 of the Marshalled List—which I will not test the opinion of the House on tonight—mitigates the rigour of the exception that has been created in the Government’s amendments. They say they have abandoned retrospectivity, to put it crudely, but they have retained a regulatory power to abandon retrospectivity. I am not going to force the issue tonight, but I ask the Government to reflect on the constitutionality of that approach, because it makes me feel decidedly uncomfortable. I do not want to dilute my thanks for the acceptance in principle of what I moved a few days ago.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as laid out in the register. These Benches are supportive of the discomfiture, which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, just referred to, to find that eventual clarification. We also support Motion G1 in this group.
My Motion F1 would mean that if an individual has been made inadmissible under this legislation and has not been removed to a safe country after six months, their claim will be processed within the UK system. The Ministers in both Chambers, in response to my amendment at an earlier stage, said—it has been repeated here—that people might game the system or that it would incentivise people to make spurious claims so as to extend their time in the United Kingdom in order to reach the magic six months.
In response to this concern, the current form of Motion F1 would pause the calculation of six months during any suspensive claim as set out in the Bill. It is also important to be mindful that the Bill in itself is claimed by Ministers to prevent people from making last-minute legal challenges to stop removals. My Motion totally disincentivises people from making spurious claims.
The Minister in the other place said that my earlier amendment would undermine the Bill. It does not. It would simply provide a backstop that protects the taxpayers of this country from indefinitely supporting people existing in the UK in limbo.
The Government’s own impact assessment on the Bill assumes that people will be detained for 40 days before removal. In this Chamber, we have heard constantly from the Minister that it will be not months but weeks or days when people are removed. On that basis, the ability to make a claim after six months should not be a problem, because it is totally in line with the Government’s expectations of their very own Bill.
Without this amendment, the Home Secretary is setting herself up for an extremely challenging time. There will be no way of resolving the foreseeable challenge of not having anywhere to remove people who arrive in the United Kingdom on irregular routes. Whether that is resolved in the future, the Government express the desire that they will be able to make this happen. If you believe, in the Government’s own words, that the Bill can be “workable”, then it is entirely financially prudent for us in this Chamber to try and insist that, in the current climate, the Government should be prudent with their spending of the public purse in using taxpayers’ money to support people indefinitely and without a returns agreement—because six months will have passed.
In addition to the financial considerations, it does not seem to me to be particularly in line with a Conservative mindset to enforce that people remain in the United Kingdom without being able to contribute, use their skills or participate in society. If these people cannot be removed after a reasonable amount of time, their claim should be processed, so that they either get on with their lives in the United Kingdom or be removed to their country of origin.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to Motion G and my Amendment 23B in lieu. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in particular, who has been a stalwart supporter of me in relation to this clause from the very beginning.
The clause identifies countries currently specified in Schedule 1 which, the evidence and the law show—by virtue of decisions made by UK courts—are not safe places. I explained to the House on Report what the evidence briefly was in relation to each of them. The House and I have not received any refutation of the point that I made—that all these countries are unsafe places for LGBT people. The only answer that is given by the Government and repeated by the Minister is that this will all come out in the wash when a removal notice is served, and a serious harm suspensive claim can be made.
I am afraid that simply is not good enough. The Bill contains a schedule: Schedule 1. Schedule 1 identifies itself as listing places to which persons can be removed. Schedule 1 is related back to the provisions of Clauses 5 and 4, which provide that people can be moved only to those countries in Schedule 1.
If the approach of the Minister were correct, we would not have a schedule at all. But we have a schedule, and it rightly makes a distinction between those countries which are safe—so it says—and those which are not. There is also a division between those which are safe for women and those which are not. I have put forward the amendment for another group of disadvantaged people, who, as the Minister referred to, are long recognised in our own law: LGBT people.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to the amendment in lieu, in Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Taking what the Government have said at face value on their protections of LGBT people, I ask them to accept the amendment, because it reinforces the principle of the protection of LGBT people and others.
On reflection, I point out that, of the 58 countries that currently criminalise homosexuality—and they are on the increase, as we have seen with Uganda—over 50% are in the Commonwealth. They are countries with which we are more than likely to reach safe third country agreements. Furthermore, 11 countries currently have the death penalty, and there is further agitation for the increase of that across other states. I therefore argue that the amendment is proportionate and necessary.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on getting a concession from the Government and understand the point he made with his Motion, which I understand he will not move. I am pleased that it has been accommodated.
The noble Lord, Lord German, explained his amendment extremely well; it provides a backstop for the taxpayer to stop people going into legal limbo, being a burden on the taxpayer indefinitely and getting into the grey area which so many in this situation are in right now. As he said, it is totally in line with the Government’s expectations of the Bill, so if the noble Lord chooses to press his Motion F1 then we will support it.
My noble friend Lord Cashman summed up the support for Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. If he chooses to move it, we will support him. As my noble friend said, it reinforces the principle of protection for LGBT people. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Schedule 1 should not provide a veneer of respectability to certain countries that are currently on it, so we would support him.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, I ask the Government to consider leaving to Parliament the final decision on any regulations reintroducing retrospectivity. That said, for the reasons I gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw Motion B1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Motions H, P and Q. It remains the Government’s view that there are clear opportunities to misuse our modern slavery protections. The amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House on Report would severely undermine and in some cases prevent the Government from being able to prevent potential misuse and effectively tackle the crisis of illegal entry.
As I have repeatedly made clear, the scheme provided for in the Bill will succeed in preventing and deterring illegal migration into the UK only if we can swiftly remove illegal entrants either to their home country or to a safe third country. Having to wait more than 500 days for a conclusive grounds decision is not swift by any stretch of the imagination.
While it remains the case that the Government cannot support any of the amendments to which these Motions relate, I recognise the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Randall and others about the impact of the Bill on those who are exploited in the United Kingdom. It is worth reminding this House that these provisions will not affect potential victims of modern slavery referred into the national referral mechanism who are British nationals and nor will they impact unaccompanied children under the age of 18 or those who lawfully entered the UK and subsequently overstayed. Additionally, changes to the Bill agreed in the other place mean that the retrospective application of the duty to remove will be applicable only from Royal Assent, removing a significant cohort from the reach of these time-limited provisions.
Furthermore, this change reduces the likelihood of individuals in this cohort being exploited in the UK, given that they are more likely to be in detention rather than out in the community. None the less, the Government recognise the importance of enabling potential victims of modern slavery to co-operate with law enforcement to ensure successful prosecutions.
We are committed to stamping out human trafficking and to bringing criminal gangs to justice, including those who commit offences in the United Kingdom. That is why, alongside our pre-existing exception, which allows victims to remain in the United Kingdom to co-operate with an investigation where necessary, we will provide in statutory guidance that an individual who has arrived in the UK illegally and has a positive reasonable grounds decision based on an incident that has taken place in the United Kingdom will be afforded 30 days from this positive decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. They will not be removed within this period, which affords them protection equivalent with those set out in ECAT. Should they continue to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and protections of the NRM. Given this, I do not see the need for my noble friend’s Amendment 56, or for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, Amendment 57.
I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Randall and other noble Lords as to how these provisions will apply and operate. We expect that relatively few of those subject to the duty in Clause 2 will be potential victims of modern slavery whose exploitation took place in the UK, and for those potential victims, our statutory guidance will make it clear that they can continue to access support where they are co-operating with an investigation.
On this basis, and in view of the votes in the other place to disagree with Amendments 6 and 56, I invite the House to agree the government Motions. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 6, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion C1, as an amendment to Motion C. I shall not repeat the extensive arguments we had both in Committee and on Report, save to say that this concerns modern slavery, which is a brutal crime that involves sophisticated criminal networks buying and selling people for profit.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said this evening, but the fact is that if the Bill is left unamended, it completely undermines the Modern Slavery Act, and we will see victims of crime punished for crimes committed by the perpetrators, deported or held in detention centres, exacerbating the pre-existing trauma that so many of them face. Once again, the Minister implies that his own modern slavery national referral mechanism process provides opportunities to misuse the modern slavery protections, despite the evidence, to which he has never responded, that 90% of competent authorities’ decisions were positive last year—in other words, there were reasonable grounds that someone was a victim of modern slavery. Where are the failings there with the NRM system, which his own officials oversee and administer?
The Minister did not repeat the claim tonight that the national referral mechanism rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% in 2019 to 73% in 2021. That was a claim which he has made both in Committee and on Report and which his colleague, the Minister in the Commons, made in the other place. But last night, Mrs Theresa May pointed out that the figures that Ministers cite of that increase from 6% to 73% are simply not right in respect of modern slavery. They are actually talking about people who are subsequently detained for removal. As Mrs May asked, will the Government confirm that the average percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has not changed over the last three years and is around 7%?
I have of course listened to the Government’s concession on retrospection, although I noted the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which really qualifies the concession which has been made.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Motion P, to which the Minister referred. I should refer to my interest as a deputy chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation. Perhaps it should be called not the Human Trafficking Foundation but the “modern slavery foundation”, because there is a difference with human trafficking, which is what I think stop the boats is all about. By dint of modern slavery, everybody who is enslaved and arrives in this country has come in illegally. Nobody comes in legally for modern slavery.
I am very disappointed with this Bill. However, I am a pragmatist. Years in retail taught me that sometimes you cannot have everything you want. So when my right honourable friend Theresa May spoke so eloquently and voted against the Government—and I can say as a former Deputy Chief Whip that that was only the second time she has ever voted against the Conservative Whip, which tells you something; you could not wish for a more loyal person—she did so because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said, it is not a great Bill in respect of modern slavery.
However, my noble friend and my right honourable friend down the other end in the other place made some concessions about what they would put in the guidance. My Motion basically asks that those concessions, that guidance, be put in the Bill. I would have preferred my original words—I would have preferred all sorts of things—but in order to make sure that we can get something done for the victims of this horrendous, heinous crime, if the Minister does not have a damascene conversion, when the time comes, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I cannot express strongly enough our huge disappointment about what is happening with the Modern Slavery Act. I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. The Minister talked about “opportunities to misuse”, when it is the Home Office which approves the first responders who have to get possible victims of slavery into the NRM in the first place. He talked about enabling co-operation but, with what most of the people in this situation will have gone through, 30 days is simply insufficient for them to be able to bring themselves to co-operate with an authority figure in a foreign country when they are still worried about what their trafficker might do when he finds them and about what they will do if they have to try to get away from the system. It is simply not enough.
To co-operate requires support. That, in turn, requires trust, and that, in turn, requires time. Statutory guidance will of course be welcome. But only today I and other noble Lords received a briefing from the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham on government commitments relating to Part 5 of the 2022 Act—the modern slavery part—analysing whether they had been met, partially met or not met at all. It did not make for very happy reading. It is a shame that one has to say that. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. We wish that there were more coming before the House tonight that we could support too.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for moving his amendments in a concise and informed way and for putting before the House the importance of the Modern Slavery Act and defending its principles.
I draw attention to Motion P1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which is particularly important as it seeks to protect victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK. Although the Minister pointed to the protection the Government may give to British citizens, some of the exploited people the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to would not be British citizens and would therefore be out of scope.
It is worth spending a minute considering that we as a Parliament are here tonight reflecting on what was one of the finest achievements of the last Conservative Government and one of the proudest achievements of a former Conservative Prime Minister. I stand here as a proud Labour politician saying that. It was one of the reasons why our country was regarded as a world leader by countries across the world, and it was brought about by the actions of a Conservative Government.
When you read the speeches of not only a former leader, Iain Duncan Smith MP, but a former Prime Minister, it is no wonder that the latter is incredulous that her own party and Government would seek, as she says, to undermine completely an Act of which everyone was proud, including most Conservatives. I find it astonishing that the Government Front Benches of this House and the other place should simply sweep her views aside, almost as though they are the rantings of a failed person who is no longer relevant. She deserves greater respect than that, and to be recognised for what she achieved. I think I am right in saying that it was the first such legislation in the world. It was blown away not by a vindictive Labour Government but by her own Conservative Government, who have somehow just brushed it aside.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, does us a huge service in bringing forward an amendment that I hope has the support of many of your Lordships, from all sides, and which tries to protect something of that achievement, that triumph, of a previous Conservative Government. In doing that, he gives us the opportunity to mark with great respect that achievement and work of a previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister.
I hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House and that noble Lords will see fit to support the amendment in very large numbers, so that when it goes back to the other place they will think again about what they have done.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch with which the speeches on this group have been dealt with. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on just one point, clearly, we do not agree and I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment. On the statistic that he cited, I simply say that that statistic demonstrates the problem we face when we seek to remove people. Such statistics relate to people who were in detention and it was those in detention who, at a massively increased rate, sought to claim to be victims of modern slavery in order, I suggest to Members of this House, to defer their removal.
For that reason, I must stress to the House that the proposed amendment would blow a hole in this scheme, and I am afraid we cannot accept my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are too many opportunities to misuse the provisions in the Modern Slavery Act, with allegations of modern slavery being made by those entering the country illegally. I entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said about the triumph of the Modern Slavery Act, and I remind the House that it remains in force in relation to victims of modern slavery who are within Britain and are British citizens. These provisions are protected in Clause 21 by a sunset provision. These are emergency measures to deal with an emergency, and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is tempting to respond in detail to the Minister, but obviously I will not do it. What is so striking is how little confidence he has in the department he and his Ministers run to administer a system they have legislated for. It is deeply disappointing, but I beg leave to withdraw Motion C1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
The original Question was that Motion D be agreed to, since when Motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion D. The Question therefore is that Motion D1 be agreed to. The matter will be decided by a Division.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, this is a consequential amendment and should just be moved formally by the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
It is a matter for the House whether it is treated as a consequential amendment, and not one that I can rule on.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
Lord Dubs
At end insert, “and do propose Amendment 8B in lieu—
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment to the Motion is about the rights of children, giving them their entitlement to claim asylum, which would be declared inadmissible under the provisions of the Bill. We have talked about children a great deal; indeed, concerns about children run right through many of the debates we have had and many of the other amendments. My point is that any child who arrives in this country, even if not by legally approved means, should still not lose their right to claim asylum. If, for example, a child in Calais with family in this country, not finding any legal method, gets here and uses, unfortunately, these nasty people traffickers, all I would say is that surely we should not deny that child the right to come to this country and claim asylum here; or, having got to this country, to claim asylum here. It is a very simple proposition.
As I understand it, in most instances they will not be removed from this country until they are 18, but at that point they will be removed. This seems to me a very harsh provision, penalising some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers that there can be: children.
There are two other amendments to Motions to do with children, Motion J1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and Motion K1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Both are good and both are concerned with the length of time that a child might have to stay in detention. They seek to limit that to fewer days and I shall want to support them both. They do not go as far as my Motion E1, which is much more comprehensive and a much better way of protecting the rights of children. However, we have to be realistic and I shall certainly give my full support to Motions J1 and K1.
I have thought about this at length and had quite detailed discussions with my colleagues. The point is that we, of course, want to support Motions that have the best chance of making the Commons think again. I was persuaded that the Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester probably have a better chance of making the Commons think again than something coming from me, even if my Motion is, with all due respect, better. I therefore feel that the right thing to do is to support a Motion tabled by a Conservative and a Member from the Bishops’ Bench, because they are more likely to persuade the Government. They do not have to persuade the Minister but they are more likely to persuade Members of the Commons. It is in that spirit that I have spoken to Motion E1, but I shall in due course be very keen to support the Motions I have referred to. I will not therefore press Motion E1 to a vote, but I shall certainly vote for the other Motions.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was ahead of me, and clearly I should address the amendments in this group. I have already moved Motion E, which is:
“That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8.”
With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Motions J, K, L, M and N.
The Government have considered carefully the concerns raised in your Lordships’ House about the detention of unaccompanied children and pregnant women. We recognise the sensitivities around the detention of these cohorts and, accordingly, the Government have brought forward amendments in lieu, to which the Commons has agreed.
Regarding the detention of pregnant women, Amendments 38A to 38E are wholly in line with those tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Sugg. These amendments preserve the existing 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women. As now, this 72-hour time limit would be extendable to an absolute maximum of one week, provided there is ministerial authorisation in place for the extension. It is important to note that, as per the existing Section 60 provision, this time limit will apply only where an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, is satisfied that the woman is pregnant. I trust that these amendments will be welcomed on all sides of the House.
On the detention of unaccompanied children, the challenge we received in the House of Commons was that in enabling a person to apply for First-tier Tribunal immigration bail after 28 days of detention, the Bill did not differentiate between adults and unaccompanied children, and there needed to be judicial oversight of the detention of unaccompanied children much earlier in the process. Amendments 36A and 36B, agreed by the Commons, do just that. They enable the First-tier Tribunal to review the detention of an unaccompanied child after eight days, where the detention is for the purposes of removal. The eight-day period aligns with the existing framework governing immigration bail for those detained at ports and the eight-day period for making a suspensive claim under the Bill.
I again assure my noble friend Lady Mobarik and other noble Lords that any period of detention for unaccompanied children will be the shortest possible. Where there is doubt that a person is indeed aged under 18, as they claim to be, they will be treated as a child while an age assessment is undertaken. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. This is provided for by the Detention Centre Rules 2001, made under Section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rule 11 provides:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs”.
If no such accommodation is available, an unaccompanied child will not be detained and will be transferred to a local authority instead as soon as possible. I hope this provides the assurances that my noble friend has been seeking.
The Commons has proposed no change to the Bill in response to my noble friend’s Amendment 33, which relates to the detention of families. We believe this amendment would put children at risk, as well as significantly weakening our ability to remove people from the UK, in accordance with the duty provided for in Clause 2. Such a change would incentivise unscrupulous individuals to co-opt unaccompanied children into a bogus family unit to escape detention. This presents very real safeguarding risks for those children. I hope my noble friend, having secured an important change to the Bill in respect of the detention of unaccompanied children, will be content not to pursue her Amendment 33 any further.
I turn to Motion M and the amendments originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which sought to reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles. Here again the Commons has agreed with the Government that the changes should be made to the existing legislation and that Clause 11 should stand. The Hardial Singh principles provide, among other things, that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances and that if, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Home Secretary will not be able to examine, effect removal or grant leave within a reasonable period, that person’s detention should not continue. The Government continue to take the view that it is for the Home Secretary, not the courts, to decide such matters as she will be in full possession of the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. As I say, the Commons has endorsed this approach, and I hope that the noble Lord, having achieved some significant changes to other aspects of the Bill, will be content to agree Motion M.
Motion N relates to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Amendment 50 to Clause 16. This relates to the Secretary of State’s power to direct a local authority in England to cease accommodating an unaccompanied child and to transfer the child into Home Office-provided accommodation. The amendment would limit the power such that it can be exercised only where the transfer would be in the best interests of the child.
We all accept that the best interests of the child is a very important consideration. That is why the Secretary of State is already required, under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising her immigration functions. In exercising the power in Clause 16, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty. I should also emphasise again that we expect to exercise the power in Clause 16 in only limited circumstances —for example, in advance of returning an unaccompanied child to a parent in their home country.
Finally, I can deal briefly with Motion E, given that this covers similar ground to Motion F, which we have already debated. As I said, it remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would incentivise the people smugglers to prioritise young people, putting more lives at risk and splitting families. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to see this.
The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords about the Bill’s provisions relating to detention and the Commons has agreed significant changes. I hope, on this basis, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lady Mobarik and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester would be content to agree Motions J, K and L. Where the Commons has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments to Clauses 4, 11 and 16, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Carlile, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will be minded to accept that verdict and agree Motions E, M and N.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support for my Motion K1, even though I suspect we would both prefer his stronger Motion. I also welcome the government amendments that would allow an unaccompanied child to seek bail after eight days if they have been detained for removal.
I struggle to see why similar rules should not apply to all children. Hence, Motion K1 seeks to rectify the unreasoned omission of children who are with their families. It proposes a 24-hour extension to the current statutory 72-hour time limit for detention of children with families. Hence, the detention of these children would not be indefinite but be for no more than 96 hours or, if a Minister personally approved it, for no more than seven days. This seems a fair and reasonable change and I urge the Government to seriously reflect on it. I really cannot see that it is morally justified not to have equal provisions for children with families and those who are alone; one child is not different from another.
It remains the fact that the institutional nature of detention affects both the physical and mental development of the child and leads to their significant emotional and psychological regression. These impacts, which were witnessed often in children prior to 2010, were not limited to unaccompanied children. All children suffered under a regime which this Government are now proposing to reintroduce without limit for unaccompanied children. I cannot accept that it is right to be prepared to lock up these children for an indefinite period, simply because they happen to arrive with families, when we know the grave consequences. The evidence has not changed. How can it now suddenly be tolerable?
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion J1 in my name. First, I am grateful to the Minister for his invitation to discuss this matter last week and for acknowledging the particular vulnerabilities of children who arrive in this country alone. But, having carefully read the Government’s Amendments 36A and 36B in lieu, I think it is clear that the Bill would contain no absolute time limit or safeguards on the powers to detain unaccompanied children. Permitting a tribunal to grant bail to only some detained unaccompanied children, after eight days, is not the same as an actual time limit on detentions for all unaccompanied children. They would still be a great many unaccompanied children who could be detained without any time limit and to whom the First-tier Tribunal could not grant bail for 28 days. Therefore, I would like to provide the other place with an opportunity to reconsider this matter.
If an unaccompanied child is detained under any of the new powers in the Bill, under the amendments I now propose, that child cannot be detained for more than 72 hours. If in regulations the Home Secretary wishes to specify a time limit for detaining unaccompanied children for less than 72 hours, then of course she has that prerogative. However, a matter as fundamental as the ultimate period for which an unaccompanied child can be held in detention should not be left to mere regulations or verbal assurance. It must be stated in the Bill. Overturning the legal safeguards and time limits introduced—and I say once again, under a Conservative Prime Minister and Conservative Home Secretary—and detaining children without any stated time limit serves neither British nor Conservative values. Therefore, I will divide the House on this, so that we may provide the Commons with the opportunity to think again carefully about the powers created by this Bill. I ask the House to approve Motion J1.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, with reference to Motion L, I welcome the government amendments, which have the same effect as our original amendments of restoring the status quo ante with regard to pregnant women.
Before my round of thanks, I have one query from the lawyer who has kindly been advising us. He says that his only concern is that they are a separate provision for the new powers in paragraph 16(2C) and proposed new subsection (2A) of Section 62 rather than reapplying the protection of Section 60. The reason that this matters is that for the purposes of the time limit, the period of detention under the old detention powers would not be aggregated with the period of detention under the new detention powers. However, now, in theory, a pregnant woman could be detained for up to seven days under the old detention powers and then for another seven days under the new detention powers. Could the Minister confirm that this is not the intention and that the powers would not be used in this way?
I turn to my thanks. First, I pay tribute to Women for Refugee Women, in particular Gemma Lousley, for all their invaluable work in pressing this amendment, and also to David Neale of Garden Court Chambers for his pro bono legal advice. I thank all noble Lords around the House who have supported the amendments by adding their names, speaking in support, voting in support or deliberately abstaining. I am particularly grateful to those Members—largely women, I think—on the Government Benches who could not bring themselves to support the Government on this. That there was so much support for the amendments on the Government Benches is largely down to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who I think of as a noble friend. She has been tireless, both behind the scenes and on the Floor of the House, as was recognised by the Immigration Minister yesterday.
The preservation of the time limits on the detention of pregnant women in recognition of the likely health impact of the original proposal to remove them represents one small beacon of light in what otherwise continues to be the gloom of a punitive Bill that will do untold harm. The government Motion was described on both sides of the Commons yesterday as a no-brainer. Nevertheless, it would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have listened on this issue at least, and I thank them for doing so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Motion N1 in my name, which is just ahead of the Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. This is a rather different point; it relates to a situation where there may be a stand-off between the Home Office and the local authority.
Picture a child who is either being accommodated under Part III of the Children Act or for whom a judge or magistrate has made a care order which the local authority is complying with, and the Home Office, according to Clause 16, wishes the child to be removed in order to send them back to their parents or to some other place. Although it said to use it only occasionally, it does not say in Clause 16 that the local authority should be consulted or, rather more importantly, should actually consent. In particular, if there is a care order, that is an order of the court. As far as I can see, it would be very difficult for the Home Office just to pick the child up and take them away where there is a court order saying that the child must live with the family, or whoever it may be, arranged by the local authority.
Quite simply, what I am seeking is that the Secretary of State should bear in mind all these things and not just consult the local authority but gain its consent to the removal of the child from its care. It is a very simple proposition.
What I would like from the Minister is either an assurance that the Secretary of State will do that, or that he will take it back to the Home Office for the Secretary of State to consider and agree to it. I do not propose to put this issue to the House, but it is very important that the Home Office’s interaction with local authorities under Clause 16 be clarified and that the Home Office recognise the fact that it cannot just remove a child if it is contrary to the Children Act.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, on the narrow issue of the detention of pregnant women, I thank the Government and the Minister for listening to and considering carefully the arguments made in your Lordships’ House and acting on them. Thanks to the many who made the case, and the government amendment, the existing protection of a 72-hour time limit remains in place. That is a small change, but it will make a big difference to the women in question, and for that I am very grateful.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support Motions E1, J1, K1, N1 and N2. We welcome the Government’s Motion L on time-limiting detention for women who are pregnant. This suite of Motions is about the depriving of liberty of some of the most vulnerable people who reach these shores and, in particular, the welfare of children.
Government Motion J is narrow, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said. It is a limited concession, and as Tim Loughton pointed out in the other place yesterday, unaccompanied children’s arrivals are to be treated the same way as adult arrivals in terms of their detention for initial processing, and the amendment proposes nothing for unaccompanied children detained for those purposes.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, for those who are deemed in detention for removal, there is no automatic condition of eight days; there is a condition that, at that point, a child can ask for bail. Just think of a 10 year-old child in detention: how will they have the support to be able to ask for bail? It is for that reason that, if the noble Baroness moves Motion J1 to a vote, these Benches will definitely support her. The same is true for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Motion on unaccompanied children.
I support Motions N1 and N2, and particularly the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Throughout the passage of the Bill, these Benches have asked on a number of occasions, as have other noble Lords throughout the House, what the role is of the corporate parent—the local authority—under Clause 16. To date, the Minister still has not answered that question. It is really important that the Minister says something from the Dispatch Box; otherwise, this will end up in the court, given the contradiction between the Bill and the provisions in the Children Act 1989, particularly Sections 17 and 47. That is why it is important that the assurance the noble and learned Baroness asked for be addressed by the Minister now. We believe that Motions E1, J1, K1, N1 and N2, if put to the House—particularly Motions J1 and K1—will add a little more humanity, kindness and compassion to the Bill.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the Motion in the name of noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as I had put my name to a similar amendment on Report.
We should not take for granted the decades of work done by many in your Lordships’ House, and others, to put together a child protection system that is well understood. In her most recent email of today, the Children’s Commissioner stated that the local authority must have responsibility for the safety and well-being of children in all settings, including when they are detained.
The child protection system that I have outlined is like a jigsaw: it is well put together and each of the bodies involved knows what its role currently is. That includes many bodies, such as the police, the local authority, schools, the NHS and, at government level, the Department for Education. It is noteworthy that in many of the legal cases taken by children’s rights organisations, the main submissions, if not the only submissions, that the court has wanted to hear are from the Department for Education, not the Home Office.
What we have with this jigsaw puzzle of people responsible is a Home Office that seems to have taken out some of the pieces of that child protection system, and we are not sure how they fit together again. Since this is an area where retrospectivity will apply to those children in hotels—they are now in hotels again—I hope that there will be clarity, at last, from my noble friend the Minister as to how the pieces of that well-understood jigsaw will be put back together, so that everybody knows what their role is. We know from history that if people are confused about their role in a child safeguarding situation, information, communication and the welfare of children themselves can fall between those gaps.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for the way that he introduced his amendment to Motion E. He has been extremely practical and political, if I may use that word, in the way that he proposes to deal with the suite of amendments in this group. I agree with him that the two Motions in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, Motions J1 and K1, stand the best chance of making the House of Commons think again. On that basis, from these Benches we will be supporting the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate if they choose to put their Motions to a vote.
I want to comment briefly on the contributions of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. In a sense, they are talking from a local authority point of view. I too got the email from the Children’s Commissioner today; she is absolutely right to point to the jigsaw of child protection, which is very much overseen by local authorities. As she rightly pointed out, retrospectivity will apply to those children because that is the point which the Government did not concede on.
Responsibility is key to trying to resolve this as clearly as possible. We hope that the Minister will be able to say something clearer, but the real point is that if it is not, it will be resolved in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made that point and it is a very fair one. I understand that the noble and learned Baroness will not be pressing her amendment to a vote. Nevertheless, the Minister should give as clear an explanation as possible of how this matter will be looked at. For the purposes of this group, we will support Motions J1 and K1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for the contributions to this debate. I will focus, if I may, on three points and address first the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on aggregating detention periods. Noble Lords will recall that a question was asked whether the 72-hour limit for pregnant women could be evaded by detaining a pregnant woman first under the powers in the Bill, and then under the powers in the Immigration Act, or vice versa. From a practical point of view, any pregnant women subject to the Clause 2 duty would be detained under the new detention powers provided for in Clause 10. I assure the noble Baroness that we would not detain pregnant women under existing powers then switch to new detention powers, or vice versa, in order to double the detention period.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her kind remarks. I am gratified for the receipt from Members of the House for the position which we have arrived at in relation to pregnant women.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for whom I have very great admiration. They were raised also by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Berridge in relation to Motion N1.
Amendment 50B would afford local authorities influence over whether the Home Secretary can utilise her powers. I am afraid we do not agree that her powers should be fettered in this way if a local authority simply does not consent. It would also create additional decision-making burdens for local authorities and could have unintended consequences—for example, if local authorities faced legal challenges in respect of their decisions. The Home Office, of course, already works closely with local authorities on matters concerning unaccompanied children and will continue to do so.
I turn to the question raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Motion N2. The Home Office considers that Amendment 50C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, is unnecessary. That is so because of Section 55 of the 2009 Act, which already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them. I assure the House that, in making decisions and in devising policy guidance under the Bill, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, the Home Office does not have, and therefore, for clarity, cannot discharge, duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989. It is for the local authority where an unaccompanied child is located to consider its duties under the Children Act 1989. There is nothing in the Bill which changes this position and local authorities will be expected to meet their statutory obligations to unaccompanied children from the date of arrival. The relevant duties under the Children Act 1989 sit with the local authority in which the young person is physically present. Accommodation of unaccompanied children by the Home Office does not change the obligations of any local authority in respect of assessment and the provision of services and support, including, where appropriate, suitable accommodation.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed. They have covered a number of aspects, all under the heading of this debate. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, are not totally right in what they are saying. I very much hope the Minister will say something more positive to support them.
I have already indicated that I do not wish to press Motion E1, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord German
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9B in lieu—
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.
(3B) For the purpose of calculating the period of six months under subsection (3), any period during which the person cannot be removed by virtue of section 46 (suspensive claims: duty to remove) is to be disregarded.””
Lord German (LD)
I beg to move Motion F1 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
Lord Etherton
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 23B in lieu—
“Restrictions on removal destinations: LGBT and other persons
(1) Where the Secretary of State is required by section 2(1) to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom—
(a) trans men and women must not be removed to Brazil;
(b) LGBT persons must not be removed to Gambia, Ghana, Jamaica, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda or Sierra Leone;
(c) no person may be removed to a territory or country listed in Schedule 1 (countries or territories to which a person may be removed) if the exceptional circumstances specified in section 5(5)(b) apply to that territory or country;
(d) no person may be removed to Rwanda until the conclusion of all litigation concerning the lawfulness of arrangements for removal to that country.
(2) the Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1) to—
(a) dd or remove a country or territory, or part of a country or territory, in order to apply relevant decisions of courts and tribunals operating in the United Kingdom and having regard to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and any other material change of circumstances;
(b) reflect changes made to Schedule 1 by regulations made under section 6.””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30, 32 and 34, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 34A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 31, 35 and 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B in lieu.
“(3A) A person who is being detained under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of unaccompanied child for purposes of removal) must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the earlier of—
(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under any provision of paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began, and
(b) the end of the period of 8 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began.
(3B) A person who is being detained under—
(a) paragraph 16(2C)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b) section 62(2A)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C) of that Schedule or section 62(2A) of that Act began.
(3C) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B) begin with the date on which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Baroness Mobarik
Leave out from “36” to end and insert “, do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 36A and 36B in lieu, and do propose Amendments 36C and 36D in lieu of Amendments 31, 35 and 36—
“(2E) If the person being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours.
(2EA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2E) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.
(2EB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than 72 hours that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under sub-paragraph (2C).”
“(2C) If the person being detained under subsection (2A) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours.
(2CA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in subsection (2C) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.
(2CB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than 72 hours that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under subsection (2A).””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
Moved by
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33B to the words so restored to the Bill—
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A to 38E in lieu.
“(2CA) But if the immigration officer is satisfied that a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is pregnant, then the woman may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for a period of—
(a) more than 72 hours from the relevant time, or
(b) more than seven days from the relevant time, in a case where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).
(2CB) A woman who has been released as a result of sub-paragraph (2CA) may be detained again under sub-paragraph (2C) in accordance with sub-paragraph (2CA).
(2CC) Where a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) has previously been detained under section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and has not been released in between, the definition of “the relevant time” in sub-paragraph (2CD) is to be read as if paragraph (b) referred to the time when the woman was first detained under sub-paragraph (2C) or section 62(2A) of that Act.
(2CD) In sub-paragraphs (2CA) to (2CC)—
“the relevant time” means the later of—
(a) the time at which the immigration officer is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant, and
(b) the time at which the detention under sub-paragraph (2C) begins;
“woman” means a female of any age.”
“(2AA) But if the Secretary of State is satisfied that a woman being detained under subsection (2A) is pregnant, then the woman may not be detained under that subsection for a period of—
(a) more than 72 hours from the relevant time, or
(b) more than seven days from the relevant time, in a case where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).
(2AB) A woman who has been released as a result of subsection (2AA) may be detained again under subsection (2A) in accordance with subsection (2AA).
(2AC) Where a woman being detained under subsection (2A) has previously been detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 and has not been released in between, the definition of “the relevant time” in subsection (2AD) is to be read as if paragraph (b) referred to the time when the woman was first detained under subsection (2A) or paragraph 16(2C) of that Schedule to that Act.
(2AD) In subsections (2AA) to (2AC)—
“the relevant time” ” means the later of—
(a) the time at which the Secretary of State is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant, and
(b) the time at which the detention under subsection (2A) begins;
“woman” means a female of any age.”
“(d) paragraph 16(2CA) to (2CD) (limitation on detention of pregnant women).”
“(aa) subsections (2AA) to (2AD) (limitation on detention of pregnant women);”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.
Motion P1 (as an amendment to Motion P)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 56B in lieu—
“(3A) If the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person—
(a) for a period of 30 days following the making of the decision referred to in subsection (1)(b);
(b) for a further period if the Secretary of State deems it necessary for a victim to establish cooperation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation; and
(c) on expiration of the period in paragraphs (a) and (b) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation for the duration of those criminal proceedings thereafter.
(3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—
(a) section 22,
(b) section 23, and
(c) section 24.
(4) In this section—””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 57, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 57A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Q. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 66 and 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 73 and 74 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 74A in lieu.
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend subsection (4) of section 38 to remove any example of serious and irreversible harm which is listed in that subsection when this Act is passed.”
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 90 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 90A, 90B and 90C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 90.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T. I beg to move.
Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 90D to the words so restored to the Bill—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that Motion T1 is consequential on Motions already passed. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 93, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 93A.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 95A and 95B in lieu.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion V. I beg to move.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102A.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the debates we have had on safe and legal routes and their importance. As has been stated hitherto, the Government are committed to providing safe and legal routes, and we recognise the United Kingdom’s role in providing protection for those in need.
The United Kingdom has been proud to offer for many years a range of global resettlement routes as part of our safe and legal offer. Our global resettlement schemes offer safety in the United Kingdom to refugees who have been displaced by conflict, violence and persecution, and identified by the UNHCR as the most in need of resettlement. Beside our global schemes, we also offer country-specific safe and legal routes for those from Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Ukraine.
Baroness Stroud
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 102B in lieu—
“Duty to establish safe and legal routes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the publication of the report required by section 59(1), make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes.
(2) In subsection (1), a “safe and legal route” means a route which allows relevant persons to come to the United Kingdom lawfully from abroad.
(3) In subsection (2), a “relevant person” is—
(a) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention,
(b) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, would be eligible for a grant of humanitarian protection in accordance with the immigration rules, or
(c) a person who, if they were in the United Kingdom, could not lawfully be removed from the United Kingdom by virtue of Article 3 or 4 of the Human Rights Convention.””
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I brought a variation of this amendment to the House on Report. I refer to my entry in the register of interests. I said in that debate that this amendment is very simple. It is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what we have just heard they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. This should therefore be a simple amendment to respond to. The moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the existence of safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are committed to creating legal and safe routes. That therefore needs to be reflected in the Bill.
For the purpose of clarity, I will take two minutes to lay out both the framework that sits alongside this Motion already and why the Government can feel confident in accepting it. First, as we have just heard, the Government have total freedom to undertake consultation with local authorities in any way they choose to ascertain the capacity that exists for local authorities to welcome refugees and asylum seekers through safe and legal routes. This is already committed to in the Bill.
Secondly, the Government then draft their own report, which they have already committed to doing by the end of January. This is already committed to in the Bill. Even then, the number of people who would be able to come via those safe and legal routes would be subject to a cap, as decided and voted on by this House. This is already in the Bill. This is the framework under which this Motion would sit. Its purpose, therefore, is that, within those limits and that context—all of which are already committed to in the Bill—the Government would then have a duty to do what they say they want to do: create safe and legal routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission and one that this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.
I am grateful to the Minister for making the statement that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and implement them as soon as is practicable—in any event, by the end of 2024. However, if this really is the case, surely the Government would want to place it in the Bill, too, so that it cannot get lost with the passage of the time and electoral cycles, as has happened with the consultation, the publication of the report and the structure of the cap. Surely, at the very least, the Government would want to place a duty on themselves to have brought in safe and legal routes no later than the end of 2024.
Let me turn to the timeframe that has been introduced to this revised version of the Motion. I have chosen a timeline of three months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for three reasons: first, this will be nine months after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal and respect the proper process to which the Minister referred; secondly, it is enough time for the Bill to have had effect in stopping the small boats if it is going to do so; and, thirdly, it will ensure that the commitment as set out in legislation should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. As I mentioned on Report, if the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline in the Bill, I would welcome that conversation, but I have not yet heard of an alternative legally binding timeframe from the Minister.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. For all the talk of safe and legal routes, we have reached ping-pong with no commitment to them as part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I will support the noble Baroness if she presses her amendment to the Motion. I wish to make two points very briefly, but before doing so I declare an interest. I returned last night from the Horn of Africa, where, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, many of the discussions I had with parliamentary colleagues from that region related to this Bill and the damage we are doing to our international reputation.
My first point relates to a letter that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, sent me after the conclusion of Report stage. I thank him for it. It referred to one of the existing schemes that the Government operate. It is an uncapped scheme—the UK resettlement scheme. In Committee and on Report I asked for clarification of whether the Government’s uncapped scheme has, by virtue of ministerial discretion, in effect become capped.
That scheme, which is global, is now being prioritised only for those from Afghanistan, in effect closing routes from all other countries that we have debated in this debate so far. It took until the 10th paragraph of the Minister’s letter to say, effectively, that I was correct. He said:
“As a result, we are necessarily prioritising those who have been referred by the UNHCR and who are already awaiting resettlement”.
That means that we have closed the safe and legal routes that we are seeking to expand, as the noble Baroness has argued for.
The Advocate-General for Scotland suggests that the Government should not be criticised for having a delay. The outstanding question is: why do the Government not have a baseline capacity now that any safe and legal routes would operate under, and what funding would be available to it? Which countries are the Government considering as candidate countries for new safe and legal routes? The Government’s opaqueness suggests that they do not have a plan that would be ready on the conclusion of the Bill, so it is necessary that we put in statute the guarantee that we will have these routes.
The second point I wish to ask the Minister for clarification on is the use of overseas development assistance. The Government have used overseas development assistance to score all the budgets for those to be resettled under the Bill—indeed, for asylum under all the schemes for safe and legal routes. This is at a cost of £1.9 billion of ODA, which has been taken away from other development projects in many of the candidate countries from which we are seeking safe and legal routes.
I understand that the Bill, and the way it has been drafted, means that the Home Office will no longer be able to score any of those individuals who will be deemed inadmissible under overseas development assistance. That means that, under the current budget, the Home Office itself would have to find up to £1.9 billion of expenditure which could not be scored against overseas development assistance. Under the Development Assistance Committee rules, the Government are now placing on the taxpayer inordinate sums of money for a Bill that cannot be operated and is inoperable. Will the Advocate-General confirm to me now that that is the case and the measures under this Bill will mean that the current way that the Government are funding those to be resettled will no longer be able to be used and there is an enormous black hole in the funding of this scheme?
Regardless of the answer, we support the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. We need the guarantee because, so far, the Government have been woeful in offering any reassurance.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I would just like to say how much these Benches support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the reasons she outlined in her introduction. If she seeks to test the opinion of the House, we will certainly support her.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, we do not characterise the time taken properly to consider the identification and implementation of safe and legal routes as being in any sense a delay. Rather, it is a proper, considered application of thought to make sure that the measures will work correctly. Beyond that point, I have nothing further to add.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Bellamy
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion X, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion Y.
Motion X relates to the function of the National Crime Agency. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, indicated that he had brought forward his amendment to generate a debate about the role of the NCA in tackling organised immigration crime. That debate has been most useful, but on the substance of the amendment I hope that your Lordships will accept that it is not in fact needed, as the Commons has decided.
As regards proposed new Section 6A of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which is now proposed in Amendment 103B, I respectfully suggest that the NCA’s annual report and annual plan already set out the range of activities in which it is already engaged to tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. Again, this is an unnecessary addition to the 2013 Act.
Finally on this aspect, I gently say that this here is, after all, the legislature. We are not the Executive, and I would respectfully suggest that the legislature should be slow to overmanage the independent executive agencies, when there is no compelling reason to do so in this case. That is the Government’s position on Motion X.
As regards Motion Y, the Government are of course grateful to have the further opportunity to discuss Lords Amendment 104 with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Government can wholeheartedly concur with the sentiments behind this amendment. While our immediate focus is on enacting this Bill, we also need to take a longer-term view if we are to tackle refugee crises and human trafficking. That is what the Government are doing. The Government entirely accept that these challenges cannot be solved by the UK alone and that we need to work collaboratively with our international partners if we are to achieve our shared goals.
The interconnected nature of migration and the need to work collectively is why the Government are already working with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and other international partners. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has secured agreements quite recently with France, Italy, Albania and the EU to work together to address illegal migration, through a combination of operational, diplomatic and development-led interventions. The UK has every incentive to continue to develop that work at international level to address the international problems of migration.
Against that background, the Government’s position, while accepting fully the very good, worthy and wise intentions behind the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate, is that this amendment is unnecessary. If I may, I again respectfully and humbly question whether it is a proper use of legislation to provide in law how a Government—it would be any Governments over the next 10 years—should set out their policy on working with international partners over a 10-year period. Government policies change, adapt and respond to circumstances. What those policies should be is a matter of public debate and political debate.
In the Government’s view, it would be a somewhat unusual use of legislation to set this out alone for migration. Why not do it for defence, health or education? This is particularly where the Government are expected to set out their strategy for working diplomatically with international partners in such a circumstances, unless it is really required. But in the Government’s submission, with all respect to those who support and have proposed this amendment, it is not necessary because the Government are well aware of the need to develop a strategy and co-operate with international partners, as I have just said.
Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 103B in lieu—
“Organised immigration crime enforcement
(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1 (the National Crime Agency), after subsection (10) insert—
“(10A) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel (the “organised immigration crime function”).”
(3) After section 6 (duty to publish information), insert—
“6A Duties in relation to organised immigration crime
(1) The Director General must, in addition to other reporting requirements under this Part, make arrangements for publishing information about the NCA’s progress in fulfilling the organised immigration crime function.
(2) Reports under subsection (1) must be made at least once every six months but may be made more frequently if the Director General deems it appropriate.
(3) Reports under subsection (1) must be submitted to the Secretary of State.
(4) Reports under subsection (1) may, if the Director General deems it appropriate, include recommendations regarding potential additional measures in relation to the NCA’s organised immigration crime function.
(5) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a summary of each report under subsection (1), and
(b) the Secretary of State’s response to the report.””
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to my own amendment, I would like to say that we very much support the most reverend Primate’s Motion Y1. Contrary to what the Minister has said, it gives us a great and important opportunity to discuss these global issues, which matter so much. Some of you will have listened to Nick Robinson on the “Today” programme—he is brilliant, of course—who highlighted some of the issues that have emerged in various areas of the world. The most reverend Primate gives us the opportunity to do that, and we very much support his Motion.
I do not intend, given the hour, to speak for long to my Motion. In the whole discussion we have had on the Bill, my proposed amendment is the only one that deals with criminal gangs. This is one of the most important ways to tackle the problem of illegal migration. Contrary to what the Minister has just told us, it is part and parcel of what Parliament should be doing—legislating in the face of what the Government themselves have described as a national emergency. The full power of the state is required to tackle this issue. It is only right that Parliament put forward amendments and Motions and ask itself and the agencies that work for the state whether enough is being done. That is what my Motion seeks to do.
To be honest, I could not believe it when the Minister said that there was no compelling reason to do this. In the last few months, I have not heard anything different from the Government about the crisis unfolding across the channel, with hundreds of people—a record number just a few days ago—coming across the channel every day. Frankly, there is every compelling reason to do something to tackle the criminal gangs who are exploiting some of the most vulnerable.
One alternative we have to the Government’s proposal concerns the international nature of the crisis, which the most reverend Primate will no doubt refer to. In my Motion I refer to the need for not only action by the National Crime Agency but international co-operation of law enforcement and police forces across Europe and beyond if we are to tackle this problem. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept my Motion, because there is a continuing need to ask the Government whether we are doing enough to tackle and break up the criminal gangs and to get to the really big figures who organise this business on a massive scale and exploit the weakness and vulnerability of people across the continent and beyond. Just by demanding that the Government answer that, we can get some of the answers we deserve. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I beg to move.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for what he said. Like him, I will be brief.
Immigration and asylum, as the long series of debates on this Bill has shown, is an extraordinarily divisive issue. Speaking as someone who has been deeply embedded in east Kent for more than a decade now, I know from experience the extent to which communities are divided and individuals are torn between their desire to do what they know is right and care for those arriving, and their apprehension about the impact on local communities. One understands both those feelings very well.
When this amendment was tabled in its previous form last week, it produced considerable reconciliation and unity across the House. It was agreed that this is a massive, international issue on a generational basis and that tackling it needs profound thinking on a long-term basis. Legislation and strategy must be fitted to the problem, not the problem to the legislation. That is not how it works. For some things we do not debate strategy or have strategy on the face of a Bill, but it is impossible to imagine that we can solve a problem of this kind by taking short-term view after short-term view. It is essential that the solutions, as we go forward, bring together the whole of politics, all sides of both Houses, and unite our country instead of using this as a wedge issue to divide things.
This is a moment of reconciliation and an opportunity for profound long-term thought. This happens with climate change, on which there is legislation about 2050, never mind 10 years’ time; it happens with defence, where documents are produced that look at our proposals out to 2030; it happens with spending plans, where we have three-year committed views on spending because we know that you cannot do it in 12-month sections.
Secondly, this provides accountability. I could not agree more that a legislature is not operational, but it is the place in which the operational Executive is held to account, never mind which party it is. That will be as inconvenient to any other party in government as it is to the current party and there will be moments, if another party is in government, when it will not like it. That is the nature of our constitution. This provides for accountability; Ministers and Secretaries of State must come to both Houses and allow their view of the world to be tested, challenged, informed and improved.
Thirdly, it enables flexibility. The strategy shifts and changes as circumstances shift and change. Most of your Lordships will know Keynes’s remark:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
Of course we will need to change our mind as time goes on—if the boats are stopped, if new threats emerge to do with migration and if there are new issues.
The 10-year strategy will enable the whole country, united, to understand where we are going, what the sacrifices are and how they will be mitigated. This is not a party-political issue but one in which we must work together: if we work separately, we will fall separately. Finally, it puts us back into leadership globally. Without leadership, we cannot lead as this country should do and as we have so often shown we can. This is an international issue. We have enormous clout. It does not involve only the UNHCR, who I think are among the most extraordinary people I meet, but so many other groups. We need to see how that leadership is being exercised.
If this Motion passes this evening or if I have eloquently persuaded the Minister to stand up and say that he has changed his mind—I am not that hopeful—there are, of course, other ways of doing it. Before we come back for the next bit of ping-pong, I would be very happy and open to talk about alternative, but solid and dependable, ways of achieving the same ends for our country: reconciliation over this issue, accountability for this and future governments, flexibility in strategy, and leadership in the world. There may be other ways, and I am very open to those. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as someone who rarely goes to bed after 11 pm, I will be incredibly brief. I will comment on both propositions and give my support to my noble friend Lord Coaker and to the most reverent Primate.
We reached an agreement with the French 21 years ago that tackled organised criminality, not its victims. For a time, it was successful. The business model changed, and we must change with it. The National Crime Agency, working with its counterparts in France, could do a similar job, with the Government negotiating with the Government of France. We could pay for a licensing scheme in France that would make it a criminal offence for anyone to purchase, transport or sell a boat without a licence. Our agencies and theirs could then work together to tackle the organised criminal fraternity, who are bringing such misery.
In support of the most reverend Primate, if we ever needed a long-term strategy of 10 years rather than 10 months, one geared not to a general election but to solving a problem, and to dealing with it internationally, on a long-term basis, we need it now. That is why this House should support both propositions.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, today the Government heralded a reduction in the vacancies in the social care sector. This was achieved mainly through the arrival of 70,000 overseas workers in the last year, while the Bill tries to stop 45,000 people desperately seeking sanctuary in the UK. We on these Benches support Motions X1 and Y1. In a Bill devoid of any measures that target people smugglers, Motion X1 is the very minimum required. It is remarkable that stopping the boats is one of the Prime Minister’s five priorities, and yet it is not one of the Home Secretary’s strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency.
The most reverend Primate has made a compelling case in Motion Y1. The Government have set out in legislation the need for a climate change strategy. But, again, on one of the Prime Minister’s five top priorities, there is no need to set out in legislation the need for a strategy in relation to the movement of refugees and human trafficking. How can the Minister possibly say that that is a consistent position for the Government to take? We on these Benches will support both these Motions if the noble Lord and the most reverend Primate decide to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, if I may I will first deal briefly with Motion X1 and the National Crime Agency. It is important to remind the House that the Government have a dedicated multi-agency task force on organised immigration crime, which includes the NCA. The task force is committed to dismantling organised immigration crime groups internationally, including the criminal networks which facilitate people smuggling. In partial response, at least, to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the task force is active in 17 countries worldwide, working with partners to build intelligence and prosecution capability.
The Government’s position, and indeed the position of the House of Commons, is that there is no need for further legislative measures to support the effectiveness of the National Crime Agency. That is the reason why the Government cannot support Motion X1. As regards Motion Y1, no one could have listened to the speeches tonight without recognising the power and sincerity with which they were made. The Government are all for reconciliation and accountability; that is a matter, in the Government’s view, for the normal political process. The House of Commons’ view, as expressed very recently and by a substantial majority, is that Amendment Y1 is unnecessary, although I am sure the sentiment behind it is shared by all of us.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this brief debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support and one or two of the ideas he brought forward, which highlight the point I am trying to make. That I have tabled an amendment has caused my noble friend Lord Blunkett to put before your Lordships the idea of licensing the boats. That may be a good idea, there may be better ideas or there may be additional ideas, but at least that was an idea that came forward.
The Minister himself has given the House a couple of facts about 17 countries working together; that has never come up in our discussions on the Bill. We need to continue to ask questions of the Government and to keep making demands of them; through that, public policy will be improved. The very least we can do is for at least one part of the Bill to concentrate on the criminal gangs who are causing such misery, rather than on the people who suffer misery at the hands of those gangs. That is the purpose of my amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his support.
I finish with reference to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. How refreshing it is to have a contribution which talks about how to deal with a common problem facing humanity, whatever our views or wherever we come from—actually looking at what we might do to come together to solve that common problem rather than seeking to divide us, as sometimes happens.
I finish with this: we either try to solve this problem as one country—where one country believes that it can solve the problem by tightening up its borders and pulling up the drawbridge—or we recognise that across the continent and the globe countless millions of people are moving and the number who are going move in the future is probably going to increase. Some of the poorest countries in the world take in more refugees than many of the richer countries. All that needs to be discussed, debated and looked at—not just in a debate in Parliament but over a period of time in which people can contribute. That should include not just people in the legislature but members of the public, organisations and people from different parts of the globe.
I thought that the most reverend Primate’s contribution was refreshing and is to be welcomed. I hope that as well as supporting my own Motion your Lordships see fit to support the Motion in his name. It deserves support. It allows us to look forward, up and out, rather than inward. For that, we are in his debt. I look forward to all of us supporting his Motion. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Motion X1.
Lord Bellamy
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 104 and 107, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 107A.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoke to Motion Y. I beg to move.
Motion Y1 (as an amendment to Motion Y)
The Archbishop of Canterbury
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 107B and 107C in lieu—
“Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees, to the United Kingdom through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees.
(2) The strategy must include an evaluation of the factors driving migration by irregular routes and the movement of refugees to the United Kingdom.
(3) The strategy must also include provisions for tackling human trafficking to the United Kingdom and an evaluation of the factors driving demand.
(4) The Secretary of State must make and lay before Parliament a statement of policies for implementing the strategy.
(5) The first statement must be made within twelve months of the passing of this Act; and a subsequent statement must be made within twelve months of the making of the previous statement.
(6) A Minister of the Crown must, within three months of a statement under this section being laid before Parliament, move a motion in each House for the statement to be debated.
(7) “Ten-year strategy” means a strategy for the period of ten years beginning with the day on which preparation of the strategy is completed.
(8) “The Refugee Convention” means the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and its Protocol.”
“(ba) section (Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking);””
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, despite the gracious and kind words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for which I am most grateful, I would like to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
22:33 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 217 - Motion A1 disagreed.
23:09 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 213 - Motion B1 disagreed.
23:21 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 207 - Motion D1 disagreed.
00:06 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 205 - Motion F1 disagreed.
00:18 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 166 / Noes: 201 - Motion H1 disagreed.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1B, 7B and 90D to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 90E.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, before I get into the detail of the amendments, it is worth reiterating why we are here again debating this Bill late at night. The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection to those who genuinely need it through our safe and legal routes. The United Kingdom is one of the largest recipients of UNHCR-referred refugees globally, having resettled 28,000 through UNHCR resettlement schemes between 2015 and 2022. This places the United Kingdom second only to Sweden in Europe.
However, the volume of illegal small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. We have a duty to house those arriving illegally, but that is now costing £6 million a day and £3.6 billion a year. With over 45,000 people making dangerous channel crossings last year, this is simply no longer sustainable. If people know there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to arrive here illegally. It is therefore only right that we stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people, ultimately enabling the Government to have greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.
We have spent many an hour debating these issues. That is, of course, as it should be, but your Lordships will have also seen that the elected House has today reconsidered amendments a second time, and by a significant majority disagreed with the Lords amendments. I suggest we therefore respect the will of the elected House and the British people by passing this Bill.
I turn to the amendments. As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, and as the Immigration Minister has set out in the other place, the Government take their international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, very seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the United Kingdom’s international obligations.
In her speech last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in referring to her revised amendment, talked of “softening its requirements”, but the words in Amendment 1B,
“and any acts and omissions made as a result”,
mean that it was not simply an interpretive clause. The effect of those words would be that these conventions would, in effect, be incorporated into our domestic law. A Lords amendment to a purported interpretation provision is not the right place to effect something so constitutionally significant.
Amendment 90F seeks to address this concern by substituting new wording, namely:
“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under”
the various specified conventions. I suggest that the revised wording still presents the same challenges I outlined earlier. Either the new clause has substantive effect or it serves no purpose, and the noble Baroness’s intent is clearly the former.
On Amendment 90H, the Bill creates a bespoke suspensive claim and appeals process which will allow illegal migrants to make a suspensive claim if they consider that a mistake has been made in applying the duty, or if they would face a risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to a third country. These are the only claims that should suspend removal, and limiting the ability of any other claims to prevent removal is necessary to deliver the essence of the Bill, ensuring that illegal entrants are promptly removed following the determination of any suspensive claim and appeal.
The Commons has now considered and rejected amendments similar to this on three occasions. It is time to restore the original Clause 1 to the Bill, with its clear statement of purpose: to avoid and deter unlawful migration, and to create certainty. It is time to respect the clearly expressed view of the elected House by endorsing Motion A. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Chakrabarti
At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 90F, 90G and 90H in lieu—
“IntroductionIn interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under—(a) the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;(b) the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees including the Protocol to that Convention;(c) the 1954 and 1961 UN Conventions on the Reduction of Statelessness;(d) the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;(e) the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking Human Beings.”
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this Bill was not a manifesto commitment at the last election; it is rather the extended version of a populist slogan for the upcoming one. That distinction is even more constitutionally significant when the Executive propose to expunge the age-old common law jurisdiction of His Majesty’s courts to issue interim relief in expulsion cases, the judicial practice of considering international obligations, and the Human Rights Act 1998 duty to interpret legislation compatibly with convention rights and freedoms where possible.
Noble Lords, and in particular the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, rejected the Government’s suggestion that the previous amendment to Clause 1 offended our legal traditions. None the less, we have softened it still further, removing references to “acts and omissions” and intended compliance only in the spirit of dialogue with the other place. Now, it merely requires that those interpreting this measure give regard to the human rights treaties mentioned. Without this amendment, an eventual illegal migration Act 2023 could become effectively exempt from the European Convention on Human Rights under domestic law as soon as its provisions are brought into force.
Again, in attempted dialogue with the other place we have clarified the amendment to Clause 4 to ensure that the duty to remove—so central to the Government’s scheme—is revived the moment a first instance court dismisses an application unless permission to an appeal court is granted. Without this amendment, the duty to remove applicants would continue, even where our higher courts are still considering the safety of a third country such as Rwanda.
The amendment to Clause 52 has been tightened to provide that courts must not only attempt but ensure that they give reasonable opportunity to the Secretary of State to object before granting interim injunctions preventing removal. Without this amendment, no British court would retain its common law power to prevent removal, despite grave risk to a person subject to ongoing legal proceedings. Noble Lords will remember that the Government have already taken the power to ignore Strasbourg interim relief under Clause 53.
In summary, without these amendments, the Government could argue a power, or even a duty, to remove new arrivals—potentially even as we rest this summer—before the Supreme Court hears the Rwanda test case in relation to past arrivals this autumn. That is what is at stake: one of the gravest executive power grabs and abrogations of the rule of law in living memory. That is why the, yes, unelected but more independent Chamber should exceptionally stand firm to protect the constitutional role of our courts and the rule of law.
In a state of sadness and some disbelief that things have come to this in our beloved land of rights advancement, from Magna Carta to the post-war settlement, I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I would just like to say, if I may, that I am surprised that the Government do not like this amendment. Quite honestly, it strengthens the Bill when it comes to legal procedure, and they would have fewer legal challenges to all their cases if it goes through. They should welcome it, particularly if there is no conflict with international law, as the Minister told us earlier, in order to restore certainty. The Government should support this amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am speaking for these Benches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has eloquently explained why these amendments are necessary to uphold key rule of law and constitutional principles. Quite honestly, in the Minister’s argument about Amendment 90F, on regard being had to international obligations, he keeps regurgitating this idea of backdoor incorporation. That was thoroughly demolished by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, last week—let us remember that he was Deputy President of the Supreme Court—when he said:
“This a pure interpretation provision, and it is entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions … I support the amendment because it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1817.]
That was about the previous version, and as the noble Baroness explained, the new version is even more about reinforcing the interpretation. Quite honestly, the Minister’s argument holds no water.
Since the Government have been unable to vouch for the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights because it is too novel and untested to evaluate, we need this safeguard in the Bill to ensure that the Government are kept to the straight and narrow.
The other points about the jurisdiction of the courts are straightforward rule of law issues. Is it the courts or the Executive who will have the final say on what happens to people, whether they are deported, detained or safe? It should be the courts.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1. We believe it to be a very important Motion.
The only comment I will make in response to the Minister’s opening remarks on the passage of the Bill in the other place is this. We have always said that the Government have a right to get their legislation, but this place also has a right to put forward amendments and to ask for revisions and consideration. It does not help us to believe that this place receives proper consideration of its amendments when the Minister in the other place announced at the end of last week, even before proper consideration, that no concessions would be made with respect to what this House is proposing. That is not the way for business to be conducted. This place has a proper constitutional role to play, which includes sometimes saying to the Government that they should think again, and even sometimes saying it twice.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I simply cannot accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. As the House will remember from the last occasion, a court always has regard, if possible, to the international treaties binding the United Kingdom, as was made clear by Lord Dyson in the Supreme Court in the Assange case.
The noble Baroness’s amendment is simply unnecessary, and, in addition, it would have the effect of changing the constitutional relationship of our law and international law. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept her proposed Motion. I invite noble Lords to vote against it in the event that it is not withdrawn.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. I have moved Motion A1 and I ask noble Lords to approve it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B that this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C. I will also speak to Motions C, D and E.
Amendment 9B was rejected by the Commons for the second time earlier today by an increased majority. The elected House agrees that declaring asylum and certain human rights claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill which must not be reversed. It is not a proportionate or considered amendment and simply creates a perverse incentive whereby people exploit every opportunity, including through protracted legal challenges facilitated by the early amendments, to reach the six-month point.
I note Amendment 9D has an additional provision, but this does not substantially change the effect of the earlier version of this amendment. Having debated this Bill for many hours, we will all be familiar with one of the key objectives of it—to remove illegal entrants in days and weeks, not months or years. That should be our start and end point. As such, this amendment is not only wrong but it is not needed.
I turn to Amendment 23B. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, suggested last week that the Government’s case against this amendment was simply to provide an assurance that,
“this will all come out in the wash”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1826.]
There is rather more to it than that. The legislation is clear and affords the necessary protection for LGBT people fearful of persecution if they are removed to a particular country.
Throughout the debates in this House, I have been clear that it is simply not the case that anyone who meets the conditions in Clause 2 can be sent to any of the countries listed in Schedule 1 without further ado. The schedule needs to be read with the provisions in Clause 5, which determine whether a person can be returned to their home country, and with the provisions later in the Bill which enable a person to make a serious harm suspensive claim where they are being removed to a third country.
As to the noble and learned Lord’s point about Rwanda and the ongoing litigation, I point him to the terms of the Commons reason, which states that the amendment is not necessary
“because removal of any person to any country will only be done where the arrangements to do this are lawful”.
The Bill therefore already contains sufficient safeguards. This was recognised by the Commons when they voted for a second time to reject this amendment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, are doughty defenders of LGBT rights, and I entirely understand their desire to get clarity and certainty on this issue. I believe that the Bill provides the necessary clarity, and on that basis, and in view of the further vote by the Commons to disagree with the amendment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will now be content to support Motion C.
The detention powers in the Bill are fundamental to achieving its objectives. We need a robust scheme which broadly applies to all and does not allow the system to be gamed. The Bill is designed to be operated both quickly and fairly, and our aim is to ensure that people are not held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the UK.
With regard to Amendment 33B and the detention of families for no more than 96 hours, or the new Amendment 33D, which sets a time limit of 120 hours, I put it to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that these amendments risk creating a significant loophole in the system. We will see criminal gangs putting together fake family groups, more adults seeking to pass themselves off as children, and genuinely unaccompanied children being put at risk.
On Amendments 36C and 36D, I remind noble Lords that unaccompanied children are not subject to the duty to remove. The power to remove them in Clause 3 will be exercised only in limited circumstances. Therefore, for the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained under the provisions of the Bill but will instead be quickly transferred to local authority accommodation.
Where an unaccompanied child is detained, this will be for the shortest possible time, in appropriate detention facilities and with relevant support provisions in place. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. As I informed the House previously, this is already set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001.
The elected House has now on three occasions endorsed the Government’s positions on the detention powers in the Bill. Indeed, the votes earlier today delivered increased majorities for the Government’s position. Your Lordships’ House should be under no illusion that the position would change if new Amendments 36E and 36F, which only marginally change the earlier amendments, were returned to the other place. I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 9D in lieu—
(3A) From the point at which the provisions of subsection (3) apply to a person, no other provision made by or by virtue of this Act applies to that person.(3B) For the purpose of calculating the period of six months under subsection (3), any period during which the person cannot be removed by virtue of section 46 (suspensive claims: duty to remove) is to be disregarded.(3C) Subsection (3) does not apply if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person.””
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, when the House last debated this issue, the noble Lord, Lord German, stressed the risk to the public purse as thousands are locked up while the search goes on for further Rwandas to send them to. I will not repeat his arguments. The House found them convincing and supported his Motion by a majority of 61; nor need I remind the House that neither my Motion nor the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, asks that those locked up for over six months be granted asylum. We ask simply that their cases be heard, as the refugee convention requires. Nothing in the Motion pre-judges the asylum adjudication procedure. It simply rules out the possibility—maybe the probability—of limbo, of extended inadmissibility gagged and incarcerated behind barbed wire.
I will make only three points, two new and one sadly familiar. First, the Minister, in arguing against the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord German, advanced only one argument—which he made again tonight. He said that it would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out to reach the six-month cut-off date. I suspect that the threat of being sent to Rwanda might be sufficient reason to seek a delay. However, in any case, the Minister’s point is met in the new version of the amendment. With all due respect to him, the change is substantive. The final subsection, proposed new subsection (3C), is new and means that nothing that a detainee does can advance the date on which the Government would have to countenance and begin to consider his application for asylum. Gaming the system would not be possible. If the Government’s concern was real, their objection is really met.
Secondly, the reason that the other place gave tonight for rejecting the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, and so many other amendments, was that it is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration. However, willing the end does not and cannot mean willing all and every possible means. Capital punishment might be an effective deterrent, as might tarring and feathering or hanging, drawing and quartering. Willing the end does not absolve Parliament from discriminating among possible means, distinguishing the acceptable from the unacceptable. Sine die incarceration, case unheard, surely falls on the wrong side of the line.
My third and final point is that the underlying issue here is simple and sadly familiar. Our debate has not been just about conventions and commitments. It has been about people, about common humanity. It is about whether the House and the country think that locking people up sine die is a fair and reasonable way to treat those fleeing oppression, famine and war—locking them up and denying them any chance to explain why they seek sanctuary here and what it is that they fear back home. Doing that was in no party’s election manifesto. The House has so far taken the view that it is not what the country should do. I hope that we shall maintain that view. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion D1. I remind the House that this issue was raised at an earlier stage, either on Report or in ping-pong, by a Member of the Conservative Benches in this House. I also remind the House that how the law will be applied is not what the Minister says; it is what the law actually states. We are hearing from the Minister that in relation to unaccompanied children it will not be used very much, but that is absolutely not good enough. If the law allows unaccompanied children to be detained for well over 28 days—that is, unless the child gets to the tribunal, and how will the child know that he or she is to apply to the tribunal?—then under this law they could remain there indefinitely.
I have four points to make. First, there is a risk to the welfare of the child of this indefinite detention instead of the present 24-hour maximum—a very considerable increase. The Government talk about child-appropriate detention. I just wonder what that really means.
I am afraid that I have banged on to this House again and again about the Children Acts, but I am particularly concerned about the impact of the Children Acts on Home Office detention if the detention goes beyond just two or three days, because there is no parental responsibility. What happens, as a Conservative Peer said much earlier, if a child suffers a serious medical emergency? There is no one, particularly not in the Home Office, with the right to sign the consent form for a child. They would have to go to the court to get an emergency protection order for the child to be able to receive proper medical attention. It would be quite a good idea if the Home Office remembered that. I said it to it earlier, and so did the Conservative Peer, but it does not seem to have put that in its mind.
Secondly, I worry about the Department for Education. To what extent does it know the implications of the Bill? I get the impression that the members of the DfE in this House do not really have any knowledge of it.
Thirdly, there may be disputes between local authorities and the Home Office over a child being removed from local authority care under the Children Acts and taken into detention. What happens if there is a care order where a judge has ordered that a child should be living in a particular place under the care of a local authority? Is the Home Office really going to move the child where there has been a judicial order over where the child lives?
Fourthly, although I know this is not necessarily popular with many people, Article 5 of the human rights convention talks about detention. In due course I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion E1. This Motion, as with Motion D1, concerns vulnerable children being deprived of their freedom—in this case, those accompanied children. I am disappointed that, regardless of the strength of opinion across this Chamber, the Government are still not proposing to set limits on the detention of children in the Bill, whether they are accompanied or unaccompanied. Despite the comments of the Minister about the possibility of fake families earlier in the debate, I wish to press the point.
My amendment, as originally tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester last week, seeks to address and bring forward provisions for children within families. It was the Prime Minister himself who stated that it is not the intention of the Bill to detain children. This amendment seeks to go some way towards ensuring that commitment for all children. It would ensure that for families with children, the children could be detained for no longer than 120 hours—five days—or for no longer than seven days, with ministerial approval. It presents a proportionate response to the possibility of unlimited detention of children that is a compromise on what is in the 2014 Act. Given that the Government intend to deport those meeting the conditions of Clause 2 swiftly, It would not hinder that objective.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support all three amendments, Amendments B1, D1 and E1. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on admissibility is very sensible, because it is in line with the Government’s expectations of the Bill. It is not a wrecking amendment. The Government say that the deterrent impact of the Bill will be sufficient to ensure that everyone being removed will be processed within six months—in fact, the Minister already said this evening that it will be days or weeks, not months. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, does not alter any of the intended deterrents, and any time spent on an appeal pauses the six months. So this amendment protects the indefinite commitment of taxpayers’ money to support people kept in limbo, and it must be the expectation that in their rejection of it, the Government expect people to be detained for six months or more—otherwise they would not be objecting to it.
The amendment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is very worthy of support. This Government have taken a regressive step without justification and without evidence of it causing a pull factor—even from recent history since the current limits were introduced in 2014. Children should be treated as children first, not by their immigration status. We know enough about detention of children to know that it is not in the child’s best interest, whether they are on their own or with their family. That is why we also support the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol on accompanied children. If we ought to have them, we need proper time limits in the Bill, not permission to make a bail application. This part of the Bill will be a stain on our reputation, and it is not the will of the British people—although people will say it is—to lock up children. We can control immigration without inflicting suffering on children.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has asked me to give a short commentary. He did not put an amendment down, but he wanted me to say, first, that the Government have never denied that the specified countries in the Bill are unsafe for LGBT people, and that includes Rwanda. He also asked me to say that it is reasonable that there should be no removals to Rwanda so long as there is litigation in process, and that prohibition on removal in the case of countries facing a proposal of proceedings under Article 7 is right in principle and mirrors the existing provisions regarding return under Section 80A. He wanted me to make those points even though he has chosen not to table a further amendment.
We have heard all the movers of amendments give a full explanation of their amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke about common humanity—I of course agree with that—and about trying to support people who will potentially be kept in limbo through this Bill. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave four examples of why she will be moving her amendment. The one that resonated most with me was her second point about needing to get an emergency protection order for a medical intervention for a child. As a family magistrate, I occasionally do those orders. I find it really quite shocking that, even for relatively routine orders, the Home Office would have to go to court to get a medical intervention. She made other points as well but that is the one that particularly resonated with me.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol introduced her amendment about a time limit of 120 hours, or up to seven days when authorised by a Minister; we will support the right reverend Prelate should she choose to move to a vote.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government cannot accept any of the proposed amendments. I shall deal first with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to his Motion B1 and his amendment concerning a proposed subsection (3C) where subsection (3) would not apply
“if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person”.
I suggest that that phrase would generate a tidal wave of litigation were this amendment to be accepted. It would make the statute wholly uncertain and, I suggest, open a very large loophole in the scheme of the Bill.
I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in relation to the provisions concerning the responsibility in respect of children. I can reassure both the noble and learned Baroness and the right reverend Prelate that we are working closely with DfE on the implementation of this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the other propositions that they advanced.
Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord German, it is not our intention to “lock up children”, as he put it, under this Bill. It is our intention to have the power to do so should that be necessary in very rare circumstances. For those reasons, I invite the House to reject these amendments in the event that they are not withdrawn.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister said at the outset that Motion B1 contained no substantive change. He has now asserted that it contains a change that would be unworkable, wrecking and mammoth. He ought to make up his mind; but I hope the House’s mind is made up that we are not prepared to see sine die incarceration. I ask to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B; and do not insist on its Amendments 36C and 36D.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B, do not insist on its Amendments 36C and 36D, and do propose Amendments 36E and 36F in lieu of Amendments 36C and 36D—
“(2E) If the person being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for more than a period of 72 hours or for more than a period of 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).(2EA) Where a person is detained under a provision of this Act and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the period referred to in sub-paragraph (2E) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.(2EB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than a period of 72 hours or less than 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under sub-paragraph (2C).”
“(2C) If the person being detained under subsection (2A) is an unaccompanied child, then the person may not be detained under that subsection for more than a period of 72 hours or for more than a period of 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).(2CA) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of this Act, or vice versa, the period referred to in subsection (2C) begins with the point at which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.(2CB) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify time limits of less than a period of 72 hours or less than 96 hours where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975), that apply in relation to the detention of an unaccompanied child under subsection (2A).””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.
Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33D in lieu—
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, given the lateness of the hour and the current mind of the House as indicated thus far, with sadness I am minded not to move Motion E1.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, in moving Motion F, I shall speak also to Motions G, H and J. As regards Amendment 56B, this Bill provides an important exception to the application of the public order disqualification where it is necessary for a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of co-operating with a law enforcement agency in connection with the investigation of their exploitation.
While there is indeed a presumption that it is not necessary for such co-operation to take place within the United Kingdom, the presumption does not apply where there are compelling circumstances to the contrary. In deciding whether there are such compelling circumstances, caseworkers will be guided by statutory guidance, and we are committed to such guidance having particular regard to persons believed to have been victims of slavery or human trafficking in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that this guidance will effectively achieve the aims set out in this amendment.
The guidance will be published ahead of commencement of the relevant provisions of the Act. Statutory guidance assists decision-makers by providing them with detailed information and examples to consider when making judgments. It allows for flexibility in its implementation, which can be adapted to different situations while still adhering to the overarching legal framework, and plays an important role in supporting the interpretation and application of legislation. My noble friend and I are therefore of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the UK. The Government’s view is that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim.
Amendment 103B seeks to confer an explicit statutory function on the National Crime Agency to combat organised immigration crime connected to illegal entry into the United Kingdom via the channel. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be fully aware, the NCA’s functions already extend to combating all types of organised crime, including organised immigration crime. Following the pledge made by the Prime Minister last December to stop the dangerous small boat crossings, the Government have doubled the funding for the next two years for the multiagency organised immigration crime task force, of which the National Crime Agency is a leading component. Our determination to tackle the criminal gangs that facilitate the channel crossings is not in doubt. It remains the case that this amendment is not needed.
We have debated at length what the Government are doing, and by when, to establish additional safe and legal routes. Therefore, in response to Amendment 102B, I will simply repeat what my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart set out last week. These commitments are on behalf of His Majesty’s Government and not just an individual Minister. I therefore hope that this amendment will not be pursued.
Finally, returning to the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I remain wholly sympathetic to the need for an holistic approach and action in dealing with large-scale displacement crises and the abhorrent crimes of modern slavery and human trafficking. We work relentlessly to identify victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, delivering personalised, needs-based support and assisting recovery to rebuild lives for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Alongside this, we collaborate with a wide range of domestic and international partners to enhance awareness of modern slavery and human trafficking, bolster resilience and minimise opportunity for exploitation, supporting our ability to take a long-term approach to this issue.
The Government have already embedded actions to tackle refugee crises through existing cross-government strategies, including the international development strategy and the humanitarian framework. Much of this work has effectively and appropriately been spearheaded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office due to its focus beyond our borders. We also continue to collaborate with state and non-state actors, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organisations. As noble Lords will be aware, the UNHCR has a global mandate to protect and safeguard the rights of refugees. We will continue to work with the UNHCR, as we have done many times before, to respond to displacement crises globally and offer safe and legal routes to protection in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, we have played a key role in intergovernmental processes that have shaped the way the international community responds to displacement crises, such as through the Global Compact on Refugees adopted by the international community in 2018. We continue to work to find durable solutions for refugees with like-minded international partners.
I agree with many of the points made previously on the Bill by the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords. I wholeheartedly recognise the importance of addressing the underlying drivers and taking a long-term approach to tackle these issues, and believe that our ongoing efforts already embody a commitment to an extensive and strategic approach.
Our dedication to tackling these challenges and to finding sustainable solutions remains unwavering. However, the immediate focus of this Bill is stopping the boats. As I set out at the start of this debate, it is only through stopping the boats that we can enable the Government to have a greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.
The House has fulfilled its proper role within our constitutional framework in relation to the Bill. Your Lordships have asked the elected House to examine these issues again—not once, but now twice. The answer has again come back from the Commons that it disagrees with the Lords amendments. It is time to leave it there. I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
Lord Coaker
At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 56D in lieu—
“(3A) If the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom, subsection (2) also does not apply in relation to a person—(a) for a period of 14 days following the making of the decision referred to in subsection (1)(b), renewable (more than once) should the Secretary of State deem it necessary for a victim to establish cooperation with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation; and(b) on expiration of the period in paragraph (a), whether or not that period has been renewed, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings in respect of the relevant exploitation for the duration of those criminal proceedings thereafter.(3B) Where subsection (3) or (3A) applies in relation to a person the following do not apply in relation to the person—(a) section 22,(b) section 23, and(c) section 24.(4) In this section—””
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, and the work that I do with Nottingham University in the Rights Lab there, as declared in the register of interests.
There are times when you stand up in this House and are proud to do so to move a particular amendment. I am proud to stand up and move this amendment before your Lordships late this evening, in defending what I think was one of the finest pieces of legislation that this country has passed in many a year. That legislation was passed in 2015 by the previous Conservative Government. Many people, as I look across this Chamber, were members of that governing party at that time. If you had said to me eight years ago that I would be stood here defending that Modern Slavery Act in the face of what a Conservative Government were doing, I would have found that almost impossible to believe.
Why do I say that? Because even today, a significant number of Conservative MPs voted for a Conservative Peer’s amendment; namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, another fine advocate of the work in this area. A former Conservative Prime Minister—not to be dismissed, I would say—and former Home Secretary, Theresa May, found it unbelievable, astonishing and incredible that her own party was driving a coach and horses through the legislation of which she was proud, of which this country was proud, and which, in fact, as many of your Lordships will know from the international conventions and conferences that they go to, has been used as an example by other countries across the world.
So I stand here moving this Motion F1, which seeks to protect UK-based victims of modern slavery with a 14-day grace period, which can be renewed by the Home Secretary, to allow them to access support and to facilitate co-operation with the authorities in relation to criminal proceedings against traffickers. During that period, all it does is restore and reapply the protection offered under the recovery period of the Nationality and Borders Act.
It is not just about helping the victims, important as that is; it is seeking their co-operation to see criminal gangs prosecuted. Noble Lords across the House have experience. All it seeks to do is, for a certain period of time, to disapply the measures contained within the Bill which would see potential victims of modern slavery detained and deported. Is that what people want? I do not believe that anybody wants that. Even people who are going to vote for this tonight do not want that. But that is the consequence should people vote for this particular piece of legislation. I am not one of those who believe that noble Peers opposite want to see victims of modern slavery dealt with in that way. All I ask them to consider is that that will be the consequence. In the Bill, there is no grace period. There is no period which will disapply the Bill from potential victims of modern slavery. They can be instantly detained and deported.
Co-operation with the police can take place overseas—what planet is that on? On what planet do we believe that you can deport a victim of modern slavery to wherever and they will continue to co-operate with the police of this country? Those victims are terrified and victimised, as are their families. You will not be able to seek what we all desire, which is to see more criminal gangs brought to justice.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Motion J1. The amendment put forward under Motion J1 aims to ensure that, not only now but in the future, the Government’s policy is examined. As the Minister said, the current Government’s concentration is on international co-operation and working, although with some hesitation at times, with groups such as the UNHCR and others internationally. The amendment would ensure that that strategy—the way the Government are working—and the context in which migration is being considered are brought in front of both Houses, simply for a debate, with an analysis of the situation by the Government.
The Minister has said very clearly that he does not wish this to happen on the grounds that it is being done now, but this Bill is not about today. It will shortly be an Act, and when it is an Act it will last years—it may last many years. Who knows what will happen in elections in the future, whether they are next year, in 10 years or whenever? We cannot guarantee what kind of Government there will be at that time. That is why we have Acts of Parliament and a system of law which requires changes in the case that people wish to change the way in which this country operates.
It seems to me that the problem with the Bill is that it has not started at the right place. Where it needed to start was on a matter such as this—to have a level of national consensus and agreement on what the aim of our migration and immigration policy will be in the long term. We know what our aims are for other matters. For instance, the NHS is care that is free at the point of delivery to all who need it; it is not a political matter—at least not at the moment. That is something that holds us together, and then we argue about how it is done—fair enough.
The Bill, and the failure to pursue this amendment, seems to me to have four very simple failures. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said so eloquently just now. First, it does not give space and time for the Houses of Parliament—for politics—to generate a consensus on what we do about a problem that the Foreign Secretary himself said last week is one that is global, geopolitical and generational. We have to make time to discuss such threats. We put time aside for threats such as climate change. Much of the migration will be generated by climate change and, in being so generated, it will move literally hundreds of millions of people across borders.
We cannot put into the Bill that we should set time aside once a year in both Houses to look at that context and discuss it and try to generate a consensus across our nation, where so many communities, including in my own diocese, which I serve, are divided, depressed and anxious—reasonably, because so much is said to them that does not have a common, united vision for this nation. That is a failure of reconciliation; it is a failure of vision to leave the structures of migration better than they used to be—because heaven alone knows it is more than 25 years since we could last look back and see an immigration policy that was really working. It is not a party-political thing.
Secondly, the rejection of this amendment—and much of the Bill, as we have heard earlier this evening—diminishes parliamentary accountability. It does not say that the Government must come to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and give reasons for what they say. It does not say that a Minister of whichever party must stand up and face people such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I apologise for embarrassing him, I am sure, but I would venture to suggest that he is probably the most respected man in this House. His own experience of being an unaccompanied irregular migrant is without parallel, but his approach was casually dismissed. That is not how we should listen to the wisdom of so many years and so much experience.
Accountability is diminished. Parliament exists to hold the Executive to account—not just this Executive but future ones. It diminishes our leadership. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, but he was right in everything he said about the Modern Slavery Act, as was the former Prime Minister today and as she has spoken over the past weeks, publicly and privately. It also diminishes our flexibility. This Bill pins everything down; it does not give grace periods or enable Parliament and the Government to say that the situation had changed dramatically. Who would have said four years ago that we would have 45,000 people coming across the channel in boats? Of course, we must stop that—I agree entirely with the Minister. Of course, we must stop it, but I fail to see how this legislation does that, and I have not heard anything to convince me.
But that is the view of the other place and I agree that, in the end, on most things, except the most essential, this House must give way to the other place. Therefore, I shall not be seeking to divide the House on this Motion.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I speak for these Benches, first, on modern slavery and trafficking. The Government characterise victims as fraudulent and frivolous—those are both words that have been used in debate—but you do not get into the national referral mechanism unless you are referred by Home Office-accredited first responders. They are not frivolous and they are not fraudulent.
We are left trying to salvage something from the wreckage that the Government are making of our tackling of slavery and trafficking. The Minister in the Commons today said they would not remove anyone to a country where they are endangered. But we cannot know that traffickers will not be operating in the country to which people are removed. The chances must be very high that they will operate in Rwanda, or wherever, and we will be opening up new markets for the traffickers instead of tackling them as criminals.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall—from his speeches in earlier stages of the Bill—and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, that we are of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the United Kingdom. It remains the Government’s view that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim, and for that reason the Government resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
Moving on to deal with the revised Amendment 103D, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke, he seeks to confer an explicit statutory duty on the NCA director-general to produce a report within a period of three months, beginning with the day on which the Act is passed and every three months thereafter. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking the officers of the National Crime Agency, who consistently bring their expertise and dedication to combating serious and organised crime and making the UK a safer place. With regard to publishing reports, surely noble Lords can agree that the NCA’s time is better spent focusing on reducing serious and organised immigration crime and arresting the criminals behind it rather than producing reports. One has only to read the NCA’s annual report to appreciate the range of activities it is already engaged in to help tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. The NCA has also published its annual plan for 2022-23, which sets out priorities for the year ahead and how it will deliver them. I commend it to noble Lords.
On Amendment 107E, proposed by the most reverend Primate, I welcome the fact that he has put forward a new amendment which no longer seeks to provide for a 10-year strategy but rather a one-off debate. However, I am afraid that the Government remain unpersuaded of the case for his new amendment, and it is not accepted by the Government. It is not for the United Kingdom in isolation to assess the effectiveness of the refugee convention, as the amendment appears to suggest.
For all those reasons, I invite the House, in the event that any of these matters are put to a Division, to oppose them.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, and for the reasons that I gave with regard to the Modern Slavery Act, I beg to move my Motion F1 and wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103C.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.
Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)
“Reviews: NCA organised immigration crime operations(1) The Director General of the National Crime Agency must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and every three months thereafter—(a) prepare a report summarising the nature and outcome of organised immigration crime operations undertaken by the National Crime Agency in the preceding three months, and(b) send the report to the Secretary of State.(2) Upon receiving each report under subsection (1)(b) and subject to subsection (3), the Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable, lay each report before Parliament.(3) The Secretary of State may, if they deem it appropriate for reasons of national security, publish a summary of any report from the Director General rather than publishing the report in full.(4) For the purposes of this section, “organised immigration crime operations” are operations to combat organised crime where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel.(5) This section ceases to have effect at the end of the period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.””
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 107B and 107C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 107D.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.
Illegal Migration Bill
Monday 17th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 17 July 2023 - (17 Jul 2023)
18:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 213 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 208 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 282 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 226 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 214 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 9B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 23B, and Government motion to disagree.
Amendments 36A and 36B, and Government motions to insist, and Lords amendments 36C and 36D, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendment 33B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 56B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 102B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 103B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 107B and 107C, and Government motions to disagree.
Robert Jenrick
Last Tuesday, this House voted 18 times —more times than on any other day on any other piece of legislation—and 18 times it voted to support this Bill.
Robert Jenrick
I will first make a few opening remarks.
This House sent back to the House of Lords its 20 amendments to the Bill, many of which simply drove a coach and horses through the fabric of the legislation. We brought forward reasonable amendments where it was sensible to do so and it is disappointing, to say the least, the some of those have been rejected. I welcome the fact that the 20 issues that we debated last week have now been whittled down to nine, but the issue now before us is whether the clearly expressed views of this House, the elected Chamber—not just in the votes last week, but throughout the earlier passage of the Bill—should prevail.
We believe that inaction is not an option, that we must stop the boats and that the Bill is a key part of our plan to do just that. The message and the means must be absolutely clear and unambiguous: if people come to the UK illegally, they will not be able to stay here. Instead, they will be detained and returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. There is simply no point in passing legislation that does not deliver a credible deterrent or provide the means to back it up with effective and swift enforcement powers.
We cannot accept amendments that provide for exceptions, qualifications and loopholes that would simply perpetuate the current cycle of delays and endless late and repeated legal challenges to removal. I listened carefully to the debate in the other place, but no new arguments were forthcoming and certainly no credible alternatives were provided.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I thoroughly endorse what my right hon. Friend says. This is a matter of extreme national interest, as is reflected in the votes of constituents throughout the country. They feel very strongly about these matters. Does he not agree that it is time for their lordships to take note of the fact that the British people want this legislation to go through? They want progress, given the extreme difficulties this is presenting to the British people.
Robert Jenrick
I strongly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. This is an issue of the highest importance to the people we serve in this place. Of course there is a legitimate role for the other place in scrutinising legislation, but now is the time to move forward and pass this law to enable us to stop the boats.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has noted the remarks of Lord Clarke, who is not a particularly vicious right-wing creature. He said this Bill is entirely necessary and that we have to get on with it.
I also wonder whether my right hon. Friend has looked at today’s remarks by Lord Heseltine.
Lord Clarke and Lord Heseltine seem to have come up with a sensible option. We should go ahead with this Bill. We have to have much better European co-operation and, really, we have to build a wall around Europe. [Interruption.] And we have to do much more—this is what the Opposition might like—in terms of a Marshall plan to try to remove the conditions of sheer misery that cause people to want to leave these countries in the first place.
Robert Jenrick
I read the remarks of the noble Lord Clarke, and I entirely agree with his point, which is that, having listened to the totality of the debate in the House of Lords, he had not heard a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. For that reason alone, it is important to support the Government.
I also agree with Lord Clarke’s broader point that this policy should not be the totality of our response to this challenge. Deterrence is an essential part of the plan, but we also need to work closely with our partners in Europe and further upstream. One initiative that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and I have sought to pursue in recent months is to ensure that the United Kingdom is a strategic partner to each and every country that shares our determination to tackle this issue, from Turkey and Tunisia to France and Belgium.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I believe that the Bill should go through, as we have to do something about the deaths in the channel, which is an important moral purpose.
I bring my right hon. Friend back to Lord Randall’s amendment on modern slavery. We agree quite a lot on this issue, and the Government have said that they will do stuff in guidance, so Lord Randall has taken the words spoken by my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box and put them on the face of the Bill—this amendment does exactly what my right hon. Friend promised the Government would do in guidance. The Government have not issued the guidance in detail, which is why the amendment was made. Why would we vote against the amendment today when my right hon. Friend’s words and prescriptions are now on the face of the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
First, the Lords amendment on modern slavery goes further by making the scheme, as we see it, much more difficult to establish. There are a number of reasons but, in particular, we think the complexity of the issue requires it to be provided for in statutory guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, in line with my assurances made on the Floor of the House. One of those assurances is particularly challenging to put in statutory guidance—where an incident has taken place in the United Kingdom, rather than an individual being trafficked here—and that is the point Lord Randall helpfully tried to bring forward.
We are clear that the process I have set out should be set out in statutory guidance, because the wording of the amendment is open to abuse by those looking to exploit loopholes. Those arriving in small boats would seek to argue that they have been trafficked into the UK and that the 30-day grace period should apply to them, on the basis that they qualify as soon as they reach UK territorial waters. The proposed provision is, for that reason, operationally impossible and serves only to create another loophole that would render the swift removal we seek impossible or impractical. The statutory guidance can better describe and qualify this commitment, by making it clear that the exploitation must have occurred once the person had spent a period of time within the UK and not immediately they get off the small boat in Kent. For that reason, we consider it better to place this on a statutory footing as guidance rather than putting it in the Bill.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Democratic Unionist party is concerned about the trafficking of children and young people. My question is a simple one. We see economic migrants who are fit and healthy but none the less make that journey, and we see those who have had to leave their country because they have been persecuted, discriminated against or been subjected to brutal violence, or because their family members have been murdered. My party and I want to be assured that those who flee persecution have protection within this law, because we do not see that they do.
Robert Jenrick
We believe that they do, because at the heart of this scheme is the principle that if an individual comes to the UK illegally on a small boat, they will be removed back home if it is safe to do that—if they are going to a safe home country such as Albania. In determining that the country is safe, for example, as in the case of Albania, we would have sought specific assurances from it, if required. Alternatively, they will be removed to a safe third country, such as Rwanda, where, again we would have sought sufficient assurances that an individual would be well-treated there. As the hon. Gentleman can see in the courts at the moment, those assurances will be tested. So it is not the intention of the UK Government to expose any genuine victim of persecution to difficulties by removing them either back home and, in the process, enabling their refoulement, or to a country in which they would be unsafe. We want to establish a significant deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of the individuals we are talking about who would be caught by the Bill were already in a place of safety. They were in France, which is clearly a safe country that has a fully functioning asylum system.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Let me take the right hon. Gentleman back to the criticism he was making of the other place, because if the elected House is about to break international law, it is entirely fitting that the other place should try to prevent that from happening. The Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box telling us that this Bill is about deterrence, whereas the Home Office’s own impact assessment has said:
“The Bill is a novel and untested scheme, and it is therefore uncertain what level of deterrence impact it will have.”
As a raft of children’s charities have pointed out, once routine child detention was ended in 2011 there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. So will he come clean and accept that this Bill absolutely will have the effect, even if it does not have the intention, of meaning that people trying to escape persecution will not be able to come here, because there are not sufficient safe and legal routes?
Robert Jenrick
I am not sure exactly what the hon. Lady’s question was. If it was about access to safe and legal routes, let me be clear, as I have in numerous debates on this topic, that since 2015 the UK has welcomed more than 500,000 individuals here—it is nearer to 550,000 now—for humanitarian purposes. That is a very large number. The last statistics I saw showed that we were behind only the United States, Canada and Sweden on our global United Nations-managed safe and legal routes, and we were one of the world’s biggest countries for resettlement schemes. That is a very proud record. The greatest inhibitor today to the UK doing more on safe and legal routes is the number of people coming across the channel illegally on small boats, taking up capacity in our asylum and immigration system. She knows that only too well, because we have discussed on a number of occasions one of the most concerning symptoms of this issue, which is unaccompanied children who are having to stay in a Home Office-procured hotel near to her constituency because local authorities do not have capacity to flow those individuals into safe and loving foster care as quickly as we would wish. That issue is exactly emblematic of the problem that we are trying to fix. If we can stop the small boats, we can do more, as a country, and be an even greater force for good in the world.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister set out how my constituent will be protected? He is Albanian and has been subjected to modern slavery by gangs from Albania. He has three bullet holes in his body and, if he returns, perhaps those gangs will give him more. How will he be protected?
Robert Jenrick
The existing arrangement that we have secured with Albania—incidentally, Albania is a signatory to the European convention against trafficking— enables us to safely return somebody home to Albania, with specific assurances to prevent them being retrafficked to the United Kingdom and to enable them to be supported appropriately upon arrival.
On the broader issue of modern slavery, the Bill makes a number of important protections when we establish the scheme. If they are party to a law enforcement investigation, their removal from the country will be stayed. We have said that we will bring forward statutory guidance, giving them a 30-day period, allied to the period set out in ECAT, to come forward and work with law enforcement, which is extendable if that enforcement activity goes on for some time. We would then only remove that person either back home to a safe country, such as Albania, or to a country, such as Rwanda, where we have put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that that Government, in turn, looks after them.
I point the hon. Lady to the judgment in the Court of Appeal that made some criticisms of the Government’s approach, but did not say that the arrangements in Rwanda with respect to modern slaves were inappropriate; it supported the Government in that regard. We will clearly put in place appropriate procedures to ensure that victims, such as the one she refers to, are properly supported.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Many opponents of the Bill seem to support uncapped safe and legal routes. The reality of that would be that potentially over 1 million people could get the ability to come here. Does the Minister agree that those proposing that should be open and honest about it, and explain what the dramatic consequences would be for public services and community cohesion in this country?
Robert Jenrick
I completely agree. Anyone who feels that this country has sufficient resource to welcome significant further numbers of individuals at the present time, should look at the inbox of the Minister for Immigration. It is full of emails and letters from members of the public, local authorities and Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, complaining that they do not want to see further dispersal accommodation and worrying about GP surgery appointments, pressure on local public services and further hotels. I understand all those concerns, which is why we need an honest debate about the issue.
That is why, at the heart of the Bill, there is not only a tough deterrent position for new illegal entrants, but a consultation on safe and legal routes, where we specifically ask local authorities, “What is your true capacity?” If we bring forward further safe and legal routes, they will be rooted in capacity in local authorities, so that those individuals are not destined to be in hotels for months or years, but go straight to housing and support in local authorities. That must be the right way for us to live up to our international obligations, rather than the present situation that, all too often, is performative here, and then there are major problems down the road.
Let me reply to issues other than modern slavery in the amendments before us. On the issue of detention, we believe that a necessary part of the scheme, provided for in the Bill, is that there are strong powers. Where those subject to removal are not detained, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, given the likelihood of a person absconding, especially towards the end of the process.
We have made changes to the provision for pregnant women, which I am pleased have been accepted by the Lords, and unaccompanied children, but it is necessary for the powers to cover family groups, as to do otherwise would introduce a gaping hole in the scheme, as adult migrants and the most disgusting people smugglers would seek to profit from migrants and look to co-opt unaccompanied children to bogus family groups to avoid detention. That not only prevents the removal of the adults, but presents a very real safeguarding risk to children.
On unaccompanied children, we stand by the amendments agreed by the House last week. They provided a clear differentiation between the arrangements for the detention of adults and those for the detention of unaccompanied children. The amendments agreed by this House provide for judicial oversight after eight days’ detention where that detention is for the purpose of removal.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that, if there is any doubt about the age of an unaccompanied child, they will be treated as a child. I also thank him for saying that, if a child is detained, it will be in an age-appropriate centre. However, on the issue of what is age-appropriate, I will just say that I have looked at the operating standards to which he referred. It is an 82-page document. It has no mention of unaccompanied children. It talks about who looks after the locks and hinges and where the tools and the ladders are to be stored, but there is nothing about how we keep these children happy, healthy and safe from harm. I point him instead to the guidance for children’s care homes and ask him gently if we could update the rules on detention centres to make sure that they look more like the rules we have for safeguarding children in care homes.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend makes a number of important points. The guidance is very detailed, but I am sure that it would benefit from updating. Therefore, the points that she has made and that other right hon. and hon. Members have made in the past will be noted by Home Office officials. As we operationalise this policy, we will be careful to take those into consideration. We are all united in our belief that those young people who are in our care need to be treated appropriately.
Let me turn now to the Lords amendment on modern slavery—I hope that I have answered the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). This seeks to enshrine in the Bill some of the assurances that I provided in my remarks last week in respect of people who are exploited in the UK. However, for the reason that I have just described, we think that that is better done through statutory guidance. In fact, it would be impractical, if not impossible, to do it through the Bill.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The point that my right hon. Friend made earlier is that, somehow, those people will be able to get into the UK and make a false claim. However, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already provides for that, so anyone found to have made a false claim will be disqualified, and disqualified quite quickly. The critical thing is to prosecute the traffickers. That way, we can stop them trafficking more people on the boats. My worry is that this provision will put off many people from giving evidence and co-operating with the police for fear that they may still be overridden and sent abroad while they are doing it and then be picked up by the traffickers. Does he give any credence to the fear that this may end up reducing the number of prosecutions of traffickers as a result?
Robert Jenrick
I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, and it is right that he is vocalising it, but we do not believe that what he says is likely. The provision that we have made in the statutory guidance that I have announced will give an individual 30 days from the positive reasonable grounds decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. That should give them a period of time to recover, to come forward and to work with law-enforcement. That is a period of time aligned with the provisions of ECAT, so we rely on the decision of the drafters of ECAT to choose 30 days rather than another, potentially longer, period. That is an extendable period, so where a person continues to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and the protections of the national referral mechanism for a longer period.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I just want to make it clear that under the new regulations, the Secretary of State can still feasibly decide that, even if someone is co-operating, they do not need to remain in the UK for that. That is the critical bit: they live under the fear that they can be moved somewhere else to give that evidence. Does the Minister not agree that that will put a lot of people off giving evidence?
Robert Jenrick
I hope that that is not borne out. It is worth remembering that we will not remove anyone to a country in which they would be endangered. We would be removing that person either back to their home country, if we consider it safe to do so, usually because the country is an ECAT signatory and has provisions in place, or to a safe third country such as Rwanda, where once again we will have put in place significant provisions to support the individual. I hope that that provides those individuals with the confidence to come forward and work with law enforcement to bring the traffickers to book.
Vicky Ford
I am particularly interested in the arrival of unaccompanied children in this country, because obviously the Minister has tightened up the eight-day period for them on exit. I believe that he just agreed with me that the standards for age-appropriate accommodation in detention centres need to be updated to look more like those for children’s homes. Is he prepared to concede that no unaccompanied child should be put in such a detention centre until that update of the rules has been undertaken?
Robert Jenrick
I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes, but I am not sure that that is necessary, because the Detention Centre Rules 2001 are very explicit in the high standards expected. They set the overall standard, and underlying them will no doubt be further guidance and support for individuals who are working within the system. If there is work to be done on the latter point, we should do that and take account of her views and those of others who are expert in this field, but the Detention Centre Rules are very explicit in setting high overarching standards for this form of accommodation. That is exactly what we would seek to live up to; in fact, it would be unlawful if the Government did not.
Vicky Ford
In a children’s home, we would expect there to be the right to access a social worker and advocacy, and for the child to have the care that they particularly need. We would expect Ofsted to oversee that, not prison inspectors.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful for those points. Social workers will clearly be at the heart of all this work, as they are today. Every setting in which young people are housed by the Home Office, whether it be an unaccompanied asylum-seeking children hotel, which we mentioned earlier, or another facility, has a strong contingent of qualified social workers who support those young people. I am certain that social workers will be at the heart of developing the policy and then, in time, operationalising it.
Their lordships have attempted but failed to smooth the rough edges of their wrecking amendments on legal proceedings, but we need be in no doubt that they are still wrecking amendments. They would tie every removal up in knots and never-ending legal proceedings. It is still the case that Lords amendment 1B would incorporate the various conventions listed in the amendment into our domestic law. An amendment shoehorned into the Bill is not the right place to make such a significant constitutional change. It is therefore right that we continue to reject it.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Robert Jenrick
I will not, because I need to close my remarks; this is a short debate.
Lords amendment 9B continues to undermine a core component of the Bill: that asylum and relevant human rights claims are declared inadmissible. The Lords amendment would simply encourage illegal migrants to game the system and drag things out for as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum here.
Lords amendment 23B brings us back to the issue of the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. The Government are a strong defender of LGBT rights across the globe. There is no question of sending a national of one of the countries listed in the amendment back to their home country if they fear persecution based on their sexuality. The Bill is equally clear that if an LGBT person were to be issued with a removal notice to a country where they fear persecution on such grounds, or indeed on any other grounds, they could make a serious harm suspensive claim and they would not be removed—
Robert Jenrick
I will not, because I need to bring my remarks to a close now. They would not be removed until that claim and any appeal had been determined. As I said previously, the concerns underpinning the amendments are misplaced and the protections needed are already in the Bill.
On safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102B brings us to the question of when new such routes come into operation. The amendment again seeks to enshrine a date in the Bill itself. I have now said at the Dispatch Box on two occasions that we aim to implement any proposed new routes as soon as is practical, and in any event by the end of 2024. I have made that commitment on behalf of the Government and, that being the case, there is simply no need for the amendment. We should not delay the enactment of this Bill over such a non-issue.
Lords amendment 103B, tabled by the Opposition, relates to the National Crime Agency. Again, it is a non-issue and the amendment is either performative or born out of ignorance and a lack of grasp of the detail. The NCA’s functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime, and men and women in that service work day in, day out to do just that. There is no need to change the statute underlying the organisation.
Finally, we have Lords amendment 107B, which was put forward by the Archbishop of Canterbury. This country’s proud record of providing a safe haven for more than half a million people since 2015 is the greatest evidence that we need that the UK is already taking a leading international role in tackling the refugee crisis. This Government are working tirelessly with international and domestic partners to tackle human trafficking, and continue to support overseas programmes. We will work with international partners and bring forward proposals for additional safe and legal routes where necessary.
However well-intentioned, this amendment remains unnecessary. As I said to his grace the Archbishop, if the Church wishes to play a further role in resettlement, it could join our community sponsorship scheme—an ongoing and global safe and legal route that, as far as I am aware, the Church of England is not currently engaged with.
This elected House voted to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading. Last Tuesday, it voted no fewer than 17 times in succession to reject the Lords amendments and an 18th time to endorse the Government’s amendments in lieu relating to the detention of unaccompanied children. It is time for the clear view of the elected House to prevail. I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to stand with the Government in upholding the will of the democratically elected Commons, to support the Government motions and to get on with securing our borders and stopping the boats.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
On Tuesday, I described the way in which this Government have
“taken a sledgehammer to our asylum system”.—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 218.]
I outlined the massive and far-reaching costs and consequences of 13 years of Tory incompetence and indifference. I described this bigger backlog Bill as a “shambolic farce” that will only compound the chaos that Ministers have created. I urged the Government to accept the amendments proposed by the other place and to adopt Labour’s pragmatic, realistic and workable five-point plan to stop the boats and fix our broken asylum system.
I set out how the Bill’s unworkability centres on the fact that it orders the Home Secretary to detain asylum seekers where there is nowhere to detain them. It prevents her from processing and returning failed asylum seekers across the channel to their country of origin, instead forcing her to return them to a third country such as Rwanda. However, Rwanda can take only 0.3% of those who came here on small boats last year. The Rwanda plan is neither credible nor workable, because the tiny risk of being sent to Kigali will not deter those who have already risked life and limb to make dangerous journeys across the continent.
Yet here we are again today, responding to the realisation that, in their typically arrogant and tin-eared fashion, Ministers are once again refusing to listen. They are once again closing their eyes and ears to the reality of what is happening around them and choosing to carry on driving the car straight into a brick wall. But we on the Labour Benches refuse to give up. We shall continue in our attempts to persuade the Government to come to their senses. I shall seek to do that today by setting out why the arguments that the Immigration Minister has made against the amendments from the other place are both fundamentally flawed and dangerously counterproductive.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
If the principle of removal to a safe third country is not an adequate deterrent, why was that principle the flagship of the last Labour Government’s immigration policy in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002? What was the point of section 94—its most controversial provision—if it was not about the swift removal of failed asylum seekers?
Stephen Kinnock
The crucial point is that for a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible. A deterrent based on a 0.3% risk of being sent to Rwanda is completely and utterly incredible. The only deterrent that works is a comprehensive returns deal with mainland Europe. If someone knows that, were they to come here on a small boat, they would be sent back to mainland Europe, they will not come and they will not pay €5,000 to the people smuggler. The only way to get that deal is to have a sensible and pragmatic negotiation with the European Union based on quid pro quo—give and take. That is the fundamental reality of the situation in which we find ourselves, but unfortunately those on the Conservative Benches keep closing their ears to that reality.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—I will not take long. Does he not accept that, in reality, there is no such thing as a returns deal with mainland Europe? The reason the Dublin convention was such a disaster and never resulted in us removing more people than we took in was that it was so incredibly difficult to get European countries to accept removals and make that happen. It is just an unworkable suggestion.
Stephen Kinnock
Surely the hon. Lady sees the direct connection between us crashing out of the Dublin regulation because of the utterly botched Brexit of the Government she speaks for, and the number of small boat crossings starting to skyrocket. There is a direct correlation between crashing out of the Dublin regulation and skyrocketing small boat crossings. I hope that she will look at the data and realise the truth of the matter.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
We have had this conversation before. The hon. Gentleman knows that when we were covered by Dublin—before we came out of it through Brexit—there were more than 8,000 requests for people to be deported back to an EU country, and only 108 of those requests, or about 1.5%, were actually granted. So there was not some golden era when it worked under Dublin; it was not working then, and it certainly will not work now.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is right, we have had this conversation before, and he consistently refuses to listen to the fact that the Dublin regulation acted as a deterrent, so the numbers that he talks about were small. The number of small boat crossings was small when we were part of the Dublin regulation. We left the Dublin regulation, and now the number is large—it is not rocket science. There is a clear connection, a correlation, a causal link between the two.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. The reason the small boats problem has grown exponentially is that we dealt with the lorries issue. We closed the loophole when it came to lorries and the channel tunnel in particular, and that is why people are now resorting to small boats. It is nothing to do with Dublin. Surely those are the facts.
Stephen Kinnock
I simply say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, we had 45,000 people coming on small boats and goodness knows how many on lorries—of course, those coming by clandestine means in the back of a lorry are far more difficult to detect than those coming on small boats, so the small boats crisis is, by definition, far more visible. It is true that that juxtaposition and the new arrangements have had a positive impact, but we still do not know how many are coming. I have been to camps in Calais and spoken to many who are planning to come on lorries rather than on small boats—not least because it is a far cheaper alternative. The reality is that a very large number of people are coming to our country through irregular means, but it is also clear that that number was significantly smaller when we were part of the Dublin regulation. That is because it was a comprehensive deterrent, compared with the utterly insignificant power of the Rwanda programme as a deterrent.
Stephen Kinnock
I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
I will turn first to Lords amendment 1B, intended to ensure that the Bill is consistent with international law, which Labour fully supports. Last week, the Minister deemed the same amendment unnecessary, because:
“It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2023; Vol. 736, c. 198.]
That comment was typical of the Minister’s approach. He is constantly trying to calm his colleagues’ nerves by fobbing them off with that sort of soothing statement, but we all know that he does not really believe a word of it. He knows that the very first page of the Bill states that the Government are unable to confirm that it complies with our legal obligations. He also knows that the Government are more than happy to break international law—just look at how they played fast and loose with the Northern Ireland protocol. If the Minister really thinks that we will simply take his deeply misleading words at face value and trust him and his colleagues to uphold our legal obligations, he has another think coming.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to use the phrase “deeply misleading”. Knowing that he is an honourable gentleman, I suggest that he might want to use a slightly different phrase—“inadvertently misleading”, perhaps?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would “misleadingly soothing” work?
Stephen Kinnock
As always, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very gracious.
The late, great Denis Healey famously advised that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging. [Hon. Members: “Quite right!”] Hang on. He would certainly have approved of Lords amendment 9B, which goes right to the heart of the fundamental unworkability of this bigger backlog Bill and seeks to prevent it from becoming the indefinite limbo Bill.
Let us be clear: the current state of affairs represents both a mental health crisis for asylum seekers and a financial crisis for British taxpayers, who are already shouldering an asylum bill that is seven times higher than it was in 2010, at £3.6 billion a year. Indeed, the mid-range estimate for the hotels bill alone is greater than the latest round of levelling-up funding, and three times higher than the entire budget for tackling homelessness in this country. The only people who benefit from the inadmissibility provisions in the Bill are the people smugglers and human traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank. As such, it is essential that this House votes in favour of Lord German’s amendment, which seeks to ensure that inadmissibility can be applied to an asylum seeker only for a period of six months if they have not been removed to another country.
A major concern throughout the passage of the Bill has been its utter disregard for the mental wellbeing of unaccompanied children. Many of those children will have had to see their loved ones suffer unspeakable acts of violence, yet despite the Government’s concession, the Bill will mean that when they arrive in the UK, they will be detained like criminals for up to eight days before they can apply for bail. We are clear that that is unacceptable, and are in no doubt that the Government’s amendment is yet another example of their liking for performative cruelty. We urge the Minister to accept the compromise of 72 hours contained in Lords amendments 36C and 36D.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. The best thing for any person’s mental health, especially children, is to not put them on a dangerous small boat across the channel. Does the hon. Member agree that the best thing for any child’s mental health is for them to not make that dangerous journey, but instead use one of the many legal and safe routes? This Bill and its clauses will make sure that fewer children make that awful journey.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the only people who benefit from the small boat crossings are the people smugglers and human traffickers—that has to be brought to an end. Where we fundamentally disagree is about the means. Labour believes that the deterrence of the Rwanda scheme simply will not work, for the reasons I have already set out, and that the solution lies far more in pragmatism and quiet diplomacy, working with international partners to get the returns deal that I talked about, than in all the performative cruelty that is at the heart of this Bill.
Likewise, the Government should show some humility and support Lords amendment 33B, which states that accompanied children should be liable for detention only for up to 96 hours. This is a fair and reasonable compromise, given that Lords amendment 33 initially set the limit at 72 hours.
While we are on the subject of children, how utterly astonishing and deeply depressing it was to hear the Minister standing at the Dispatch Box last week and justifying the erasure of Disney cartoons on the basis of their not being age-appropriate. Quite apart from the fact that his nasty, bullying, performative cruelty will have absolutely no effect whatsoever in stopping the boats, it has since emerged that more than 9,000 of the children who passed through that building in the year to March 2023 were under the age of 14. Given that a significant proportion of those 9,000 would have been younger still, I just wonder whether the Minister would like to take this opportunity to withdraw his comments about the age-appropriateness of those cartoons.
Stephen Kinnock
No. Well, there we have it. This whole sorry episode really was a new low for this Minister and for the shameful, callous Government he represents.
We also support Lords amendment 23B, a compromise in lieu of Lords amendment 23, which seeks to protect LGBT asylum seekers from being removed to a country that persecutes them for their sexuality or gender. The Minister last week claimed that that was unnecessary because there is an appeals process, but why on earth would he put asylum seekers and the British taxpayer through an expensive and time-consuming appeals process when he could just rule out this scenario from the outset?
Nothing illustrates more clearly the indifference of this Government towards the most vulnerable people in society than their treatment of women being trafficked into our country for prostitution. I have already described this Bill as a traffickers charter—a gift to the slave drivers and the pimps—because it makes it harder for victims to come forward and therefore more difficult for the police to prosecute criminals. The Immigration Minister last week repeated the false claim that the UK Statistics Authority recently rebuked him for. It was his second rebuke this year by our national statistics watchdog for inaccurate claims made to this House. Thankfully, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is not in her place today, called him out on it. She correctly pointed out that the proportion of small boats migrants claiming to be victims of modern slavery stands at just 7%. This was a profoundly embarrassing moment for the Minister, but I do hope he will now swallow his pride, listen to the wise counsel he is receiving from those on the Benches behind him and accept Lords amendment 56B in the name of Lord Randall.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Member is right that I misspoke when citing those statistics on an earlier occasion, but in fact the statistics were worse than I said to the House. What I said was that, of foreign national offenders who are in the detained estate on the eve of their departure, over 70% made use of modern slavery legislation to put in a last-minute claim and delay their removal. However, it was not just FNOs; it was also small boat arrivals. So the point I was making was even more pertinent, and it is one that he should try to answer. What would he do to stop 70% of people in the detained estate, who we are trying to get out of the country, putting in a frivolous claim at the last minute?
Stephen Kinnock
Sir Robert Chote of the UK Statistics Authority said clearly that the figure is only 20%, not 70%. I do not know whether we want to invite Sir Robert to clarify those points himself, but the rebuke the Minister received from the UK Statistics Authority was pretty clear.
It is vitally important that the Minister’s position on this is not used as the basis for a policy that could cause profound harm to vulnerable women while feeding criminality in the United Kingdom. I therefore urge him to reflect on what he is trying to achieve, the proportionality of his actions and the unintended consequences he may be facilitating. Lords amendment 56B states that victims of trafficking who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK should be protected from the automatic duty to remove and should continue to be able to access the support currently available to them, but only for the duration of the statutory recovery period, which was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 at 30 days.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead argued that the Bill as drafted would
“drive a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, denying support to those who have been exploited and enslaved and, in doing so, making it much harder to catch and stop the traffickers and slave drivers.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 886.]
We strongly agree with her concerns and wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 56B, which I remind the Minister goes no further than to maintain the status quo of the basic protections and support currently available to all victims of trafficking and exportation.
I will now turn to the amendments that are underpinned by Labour’s five-point plan: end the dangerous small-boat crossings, defeat the criminal gangs, clear the backlog, end extortionate hotel use, and fix the asylum system that the Conservatives have spent 13 years destroying.
Sir Edward Leigh
Presumably it is the hon. Gentleman’s most devout hope if he takes power in 15 months’ time, but charming as he is, it is a mystery to me why he thinks when he asks President Macron to take these people back, he will do so. Of course he won’t! Nothing will happen. May I gently suggest that, if there is a Labour Government, they will quietly adopt this Bill once it is an Act?
Stephen Kinnock
I will come to that in my comments, but as the right hon. Gentleman will know, any negotiation requires give and take, quid pro quo. As I said in response to one of his hon. Friends, to get that deal with the European Union we of course have to do our bit and take our fair share, and that will be the negotiation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will be leading on when he becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, following the next general election.
We are determined that the National Crime Agency will be strengthened so that it can tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Too much focus by this Government has been on slashing tents and puncturing dinghies along the French coastline, whereas Labour has set out its plan for an elite unit in the NCA to work directly with Europol and Interpol. The latest amendment from Lord Coaker, Lords amendment 103B, attempts to strengthen the NCA’s authority, and we support it without reservation. We are also clear that there is a direct link between gaining the returns agreement that we desperately need with the EU, and creating controlled and managed pathways to asylum, which would allow genuine refugees to reach the UK safely, particularly if they have family here. Conservative Members refuse to make that connection, but we know it is in the interests of the EU and France to strike a returns deal with the UK, and dissuade the tens of thousands of asylum seekers who are flowing through Europe and ending up on the beaches of Calais. The EU and its member states will never do a deal with the UK unless it is based on a give-and-take arrangement, whereby every country involved does its bit and shares responsibility.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
On his visit to Calais, the hon. Gentleman will have met people who were trying to get to this country. Did it strike him how utterly desperate many of them were, and how they are fleeing from wars in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and other places? Does he think that we have to address the wider issue of the reasons why people are fleeing and searching for asylum, not just in Europe but all over the world?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Gentleman. As he rightly points out, the key point is that these people are already fleeing desperate situations and have risked life and limb to get as far as they have. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being sent to Rwanda acts as a deterrent is clearly for the birds. In addition, he makes important points about the need for international co-operation, and finding solutions to these problems alongside our partners across the channel.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks that the Rwanda plan will not work or be a deterrent, but why not give it a go? If he is so confident that it will not work, let it get through. It could have got through months ago, and he could have come back to the House and proved us wrong. At the moment it comes across as if the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are scared that it might work, and that is the problem.
Stephen Kinnock
I suppose the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, and the Rwanda plan is so clearly and utterly misconceived, misconstrued and counter-productive. Labour Members like to vote for things that are actually going to work, which is why we simply cannot support that hare-brained scheme.
With the Minister last week reiterating a deadline of December 2024—18 months from now—to lay out what safe and legal routes might look like, and by stating that those routes will not deal with the challenges facing Europe directly, he appears to be reducing the chances of getting the returns deal with the EU that we so urgently need. Let us not forget that this Government sent Britain tumbling out of the Dublin regulations during their botched Brexit negotiations, and it is no surprise that small boat crossings have skyrocketed since then. This Government must prioritise getting that returns deal. We therefore support Lords amendment 102B, which demands that the Government get on with setting out what these safe and legal routes might look like, not only to provide controlled and capped pathways to sanctuary for genuine refugees, but to break that deadlock in the negotiations with the EU over returns.
I note that the Minister loves to trot out his lines about the Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghan resettlement schemes, but he neglects to mention that there are now thousands of homeless Ukrainian families, and we have the travesty of thousands of loyal-to-Britain Afghans who are set to be thrown on the streets at the end of August. More than 2,000 Afghans are stuck in Pakistan with the right to come here, but they are not being allowed to do so. He simply must fix those resettlement schemes.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point that all Members of the House should appreciate. The No. 1 reason why we are struggling to bring to the UK those people in Pakistan—we would like to bring them here, because we have a moral and historical obligation to them—is that illegal immigrants on small boats have taken all the capacity of local authorities to house them. If the hon. Gentleman truly wanted to support those people, he would back this Bill, he would stop the boats, and then he would help us to bring those much-needed people into the United Kingdom.
Stephen Kinnock
It beggars belief that the Immigration Minister says that, when he speaks for a party that has allowed our backlog to get to 180,000, costing £7 million a day in hotels. He should just get the processing system sorted out. The Conservatives downgraded the seniority of caseworkers and decision makers in 2013 and 2014. Surprise, surprise, productivity fell off a cliff, as did the quality of decisions. That is the fundamental problem, but we have to recognise that these Afghans have stood shoulder to shoulder with our defence, diplomacy and development effort in Afghanistan, and we owe them a debt of honour and gratitude.
Robert Jenrick
Does the hon. Gentleman know how many asylum seekers are housed in his constituency, or would he like me to tell him? It is none. There are no asylum seekers accommodated in Aberavon. If he would like us to bring in more people, whether on safe and legal routes, or on schemes such as the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, he should get on the phone to his local council and the Welsh Government this afternoon.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. I am proud of the fact we have many Syrians in our constituency. We have Ukrainians in our welcome centre. Discussions are ongoing between the Home Office and the Welsh Government. The incompetence of his Government means that they are not managing to house them. Wales is ready to have that dialogue with the Home Office.
Rachael Maskell
I find it a shocking admission from the Minister—we are fighting for the relatives of people in Afghanistan whose lives are at risk—that these Afghans are being blocked by him because he is not making available those safe routes to bring them to constituencies such as York, where we welcome refugees.
Stephen Kinnock
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There are real concerns about the safety and security of those Afghans now in Pakistan. It is possible that they will be sent back. It is up to the Home Office to facilitate their transfer to the United Kingdom under ARAP and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but like so many things with this Home Office, it is just a catastrophic failure of management.
In trotting out the lines about the schemes that I mentioned, the Minister conveniently ignores the fact that none of those schemes help those coming from other high grant-rate countries in the middle east and sub-Saharan Africa. Neither he nor the Home Secretary have been able to answer questions from their own Back Benchers on that precise point.
The final point of our plan is to tackle migration flows close to the conflict zones where they arise through targeting our aid spending. That is a longer-term mission, but it is no less important than any of the other steps we need to take to meet these migration challenges. I therefore see no reason for the Government not to support Lords amendment 107B in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would instruct the Government to develop a 10-year plan to manage migration.
I have lost count of the number of times we have come to the Chamber to debate the Government’s latest madcap Bill or hare-brained scheme. Not one of those Bills has helped to stop a single boat, and the Government have sent more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. They are wasting their own time and the time of the House, and they really are trying the patience of the British people. It really is desperate stuff, and it has to stop.
In stark contrast to the hopeless, aimless and utterly self-defeating thrashing around that has come to define the Government’s approach to the asylum crisis, Labour recognises that there is a way through: a route based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy. It comes in the form of the Labour party’s comprehensive plan, based on core principles, with a commitment to returning asylum processing to the well managed, efficient, smooth-running system we had prior to the catastrophic changes brought in by Conservative Ministers in 2013, which downgraded decision makers and caseworkers, leading to poorer results. With that, we have a commitment to go further in fast-tracking applications from low grant-rate countries so that we can return those with no right to be here, and fast-tracking applications from high grant-rate countries so that genuine refugees can get on with their lives and start contributing to our economy, enriching our society and culture. A third, key principle is the need for international co-operation, as I have set out.
This is not rocket science; it is just sensible, pragmatic, serious governance. It is working in the United States, where the Biden Administration are winning the battle. They have introduced a combination of swift consequences for those who cross the border illegally; orderly paths and controls on which migrants can apply for asylum and where they do so; sensible, legal pathways for high grant-rate nations; and strong co-operation with Mexico. The result is that they are bringing numbers down significantly and quickly. The challenge is not over yet, and we would not see President Biden being foolish enough to go boasting at the border, but that shows that progress can be made.
The Labour party is not interested in performative cruelty, chasing headlines or government by gimmick. We have a plan that will stop the boats, fix our broken asylum system and deliver for the British people. In contrast, the Conservative party has run out of ideas and run out of road. It should get out of the way so that we can get to work.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have only one hour left for the remainder of the debate, so I have to impose an immediate time limit. I was going to say six minutes, but I will have to say five minutes.
Tim Loughton
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is always an experience to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). It was once said that someone who had just met his father had just spent half an hour having a five-minute conversation with him. We have just had a half-hour speech, but I am afraid that we did not get five minutes of anything remotely new in that.
Stephen Kinnock
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to raise my father and what he might or might not have said when he is not in the Chamber to defend himself?
Madam Deputy Speaker
It would be better not to do so. There is no hard and fast rule, since the right hon. and noble Gentlemen is no longer a member of this Chamber.
Tim Loughton
I will happily withdraw that, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I can have my minute back. I declare an interest as the chairman of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.
I was rather surprised to read in papers over the weekend that, according to the briefings, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and I are some sort of ringleaders against the Bill. May I make it absolutely clear that I support the Bill and want it to go through as quickly as possible, and that I support the Rwanda scheme? Objecting to some of the Bill’s trafficking measures is about protecting victims and prosecuting traffickers, not undermining the Bill. Greater safeguards on how we look after children who have arrived here would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen it. Safeguards to ensure that safe and legal routes are in place for genuine asylum seekers would not undermine the Bill; they would strengthen and justify the measures against those who are gaming the system, to whom we do not have a duty of care.
In my limited time, I want to concentrate on the amendment tabled by Baroness Mobarik. I also thank Baroness Stroud and Lord Randall for the amendments on trafficking and safe and legal routes. The fact is that the Government’s amendments to clause 12 will give a child on their own in the UK the chance to apply to be bailed from detention after eight days, but that will apply only if they were detained to be removed, to be united with family or to be returned to their home country. That will not apply to all unaccompanied children when they first arrive in the UK; it will impact on only a small group of children. Other separated children not subject to removal will be detained for at least 28 days, and there is still no statutory limit on detention for any separated child.
Under the Government’s proposals, separated children affected by the Bill can still be indefinitely detained. That is the truth of the matter. It is imperative to include a time limit on child detention in the Bill. If the Government intend to detain children for the shortest possible time, they can reinforce that message by enshrining a time limit in the primary legislation, as we have asked for all along. Although the Minister has given some concessions, we are still not there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald
We should oppose all nine Government motions, which is precisely what my SNP colleagues and I will do this evening. Let me say again that this Bill is so appalling that the House of Lords should stop it in its tracks. However, Baroness Jones was the one speaker who had the guts to say:
“we should be stubborn about not allowing the Bill to go through.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1814.]
As I asked last week, if the Lords will not consider halting this Bill, which Bill will it be? This Bill is about locking up kids, forcing trafficking victims back to their exploiters, mass detention, closure of the UK asylum system and the trashing of international laws. If the Lords will not use their powers to block this Bill—a Bill that also runs totally contrary to what was in the 2019 Conservative manifesto—what is the point of their powers, and what is the point of the House of Lords? Let us hope that we can salvage something from these final proceedings.
On Lords amendment 1B, if the Bill is consistent with our international obligations, the Government cannot have any objections to the amendment. On the other hand, if, as the Government have at other times argued, it wrecks the Bill to have to be read consistently with international law, then the problem is with the Bill, not the amendment. That is a good reason in itself for the whole Bill to be stopped in its tracks. The revisions to the amendment mean that arguments about allegedly incorporating international laws have been addressed, despite the completely unsubstantiated assertion from the Minister. We have heard lots of strong words about protecting a dualist system of law, but given that the Government could not even make the normal human rights compatibility statement, we need strong action to protect fundamental human rights and the rule of law.
The grouped amendments 7B and 90D are also important in upholding the rule of law. They preserve judicial oversight, so that illegal decisions by the Government can be properly challenged before they are implemented. It really is as simple and fundamental as that. The Government keep talking about loopholes, but access to courts, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not loopholes; they are fundamental principles that we should be upholding.
Lords amendment 9B is another crucial amendment. It now includes safeguards to assuage the usual Government concerns about gaming the system, but retains the vital protection that if a person cannot be removed to Rwanda even after six months, they will then have their case assessed here. It simply preserves the status quo and is an essential protection. It remains an appalling prospect that people who are refugees will be left in limbo forever by the Government; never allowed to have their claim heard here and never able to contribute, even if removal is a near impossible prospect.
Indeed, it is also ludicrous that there will be people with totally unfounded claims for asylum who will get to remain here in limbo, often at considerable taxpayer expense, because of the Bill. The Bill stops unfounded claims being dealt with, just as it stops well-founded claims being dealt with. The end result is that thousands of people will need to be detained and accommodated in perpetuity. Many more will disappear underground, as they will have no reason to stay in touch with the Home Office. It is the end of the UK’s contribution to the refugee convention. Again, if the Government are not willing to move on that, their lordships should hold up the whole Bill.
On mass and limitless detention of children in inappropriate accommodation, of course we continue to support all efforts to curtail the horrendous new powers and to limit the extraordinary harm that we know—and the Home Office knows—detention causes to them. We therefore support Lords amendments 36C, 36D and 33B. As I said last week, the Government’s amendments in lieu really represent a pathetic non-concession. A theoretical right for some kids detained for removal to seek bail after eight days is just not remotely acceptable. At the very least, we need short, hard and fast limits, and those limits should be automatic and not dependent on a child being able to navigate the bail system and accessing the legal support that would be required to do that. And the time limits should apply to all kids, whether accompanied or not, and regardless of which particular powers they were detained under. The Government make claims about creating incentives to play by the rules, but, as with most of their claims, they offer absolutely no evidence. There is no suggestion, for example, that the introduction of strict time limits by David Cameron’s Government had the impact suggested here. It is just another myth.
As Members on both sides have said, the Bill is a serious threat to victims of modern slavery and trafficking, and yet again it totally ignores devolved powers on this subject. Those being exploited are the ones who will suffer, not the traffickers, whose power over their victims will only be enhanced by the withdrawal of any route to safety for those they are exploiting. We therefore support Lords amendment 56B and anything that will undo some of the damage that the Bill will do to modern slavery and trafficking provisions. Without 56B, the damage the Bill will do to slavery and trafficking laws across the UK is yet again sufficient to justify holding up the whole Bill.
On Lords amendment 23B and protections for LGBT people, we fully support everything Lord Etherton said in support of his amendments. Put the fact that these countries are not safe for LGBT people on the face of the schedule. Anything that builds on the flimsy and almost certainly unworkable system of “suspensive claims” should be welcomed. LGBT people should not have to go through that process in the first place. If the Government are committed to safe legal routes, they should have no problem with Lords amendment 102B. On the archbishop’s amendments 107B and 107C, a 10-year strategy is utterly sensible—indeed, it is essential. Long-term thinking is as necessary for issues surrounding forced migration as other pivotal challenges such as climate change.
Ultimately, the amendments can only add a little polish to an odious Bill that is utterly beyond redemption. It should be stopped in its tracks entirely and any parties that still send people to the relic of a second Chamber should be using their influence to see that that happens. Otherwise, this is all just for a show and very vulnerable people will suffer as a result.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Edmund Burke said that what matters
“is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do.”
In considering the Government’s response to the Lords amendments, it is important to re-emphasise that the Bill is about fairness; about affirming the integrity of our nation by defending our borders from those who seek to arrive here illegally. We must have the power to remove those entrants from our country. To do so is just and fair. It is what the British people expect, what they voted for in 2019, and what they chose in the Brexit referendum.
Considering the arguments made in the other place, I was struck by the absence of a credible alternative to the Government’s proposal; there seems little sense there of the need to control our borders, stop the boats, save lives, and to make our immigration system fairer, more reasonable and more just. Sadly, much of the debate on the amendments in the other place has been characterised by a combination of denial and detachment from the popular will—denial about the urgency of the problem, and detachment from the sentiments expressed by my constituents and the constituents of other Members on both sides of this Chamber. Those arriving in small boats must be detained securely and removed swiftly, and it must be a straightforward process, for only through that process will we deter more people from arriving.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
I will not, because of the time—I apologise to the hon. and learned Lady.
As the Minister has made clear, the Government’s response to Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D is rooted in the understanding that those amendments are unnecessary. The Government take our international obligations very seriously. Indeed, all three Appeal Court judges agreed that the Government’s commitments were in tune with and compatible with international law.
As for the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 23B, we must keep this matter in perspective. There is no evidence whatsoever that the vast majority of people coming to this country in small boats, or indeed a significant number of them, are seeking shelter from persecution because of their sexuality, and it is a distortion to pretend otherwise. In respect of the motion to disagree with Lords amendment 102B, this business of “safe and legal routes” is, again, a distraction, and a detachment from the urgency of this problem. The amendment is unnecessary and seems to constitute legislative grandstanding, for under section 1 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the functions of the National Crime Agency already extend to combating all types of organised crime, including organised immigration crime.
Finally, let me deal with the motion to disagree with Lords amendments 107B and 107C, which propose the Archbishop of Canterbury’s “ten-year strategy”. I approve of having the Lords Spiritual in the other place. They are otherworldly—the Lord Bishops understandably take a view about an infinite, eternal future. However, those of us who are elected and answerable to the people directly have to deal with this world, here and now; and in this world; people demand that we control our borders, and they do so justly and reasonably.
Sir John Hayes
I will not give way because I wish to finish promptly, as you would expect me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The great Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said:
“The secret of success is constancy to purpose.”
This Minister and the Home Secretary have been constant in their purpose of controlling our borders. Let us have less sanctimony and more common sense; less self-righteousness and more selfless commitment to the people’s will; less soul-searching and more heartfelt advocacy of the interests of hard-working, law-abiding, decent, patriotic Britons who support this Bill and oppose the Lords amendments.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I regard the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) as a friend in the true sense of the word, but I say that it is a pleasure to follow him this evening—not least because it means that he has stopped talking.
There is a real sense of déjà vu about this debate, and not just because of the proceedings in relation to this Bill. We have heard all these arguments before, almost word for word. Everything that the Minister said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon had been heard in relation to what is now the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—and what progress has been made as a consequence of that? None.
I followed closely your exchange with the shadow Immigration Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, in relation to the question of the Minister being misleading. I should say that I do not think for one second that the Minister was in any way misleading. I cannot speak for his intention, of course—only he knows about that—but I certainly was not misled. To any reasonable-minded person, it must surely be obvious what the Government are about today.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Minister can relax; I am not going to bang on about RAF Scampton—not least because I have put in for the Adjournment debate on Thursday when I can deal with it in more detail. I just ask the House to accept that my constituents are, more than any others in the country, victims of this farce—this debacle—of trying to house 2,000 people in one place. That is not good for the people and it will overwhelm our social services.
There is now an argument to be had about the future of the House of Lords. There is no point in our having these endless debates about whether it should be elected or not. It should be a proper revising Chamber. When it is given a Bill such as this, its attitude should be, “How can we improve it? How can we make it work better? How can we remove these legal glitches, which will have unintended consequences?” It seems to me that so much of the debate in the House of Lords and so many of the amendments have just been designed to drive a coach and horses through the Bill and to give human rights lawyers even greater chances to develop ever more legal arguments to stop anybody from being deported.
I have some sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. What is a bit of a mystery to me is that we went through this whole process last year. We had the ping-pong on the Nationality and Borders Bill. We got it through Parliament and were told that it would solve the problem—but we still have the same problem. I prophesise that, actually, this Bill will become law. The Labour party does not want to set a precedent for the unelected House of Lords to block legislation, so it will give in and the House of Lords will deliver the Bill. It will become an Act of Parliament, and I have a horrible feeling that, this time next year, we will be in exactly the same position. Can we rely on the Supreme Court to agree that people should be deported to Rwanda?
What are we going to do? Is it crueller to detain people as soon as they arrive or to do nothing and have a tragedy in the channel? Is it cruel to continue letting people smugglers get away with what they want? Of course, I have enormous sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) says about children, but the trouble is that so many of these people who claim to be children are not children—they have to be assessed. One of the problems we face at Scampton is that there are so many of these people, 20% of the population coming into the camp, which means there will have to be an army of social workers to determine whether they are children.
I have enormous sympathy for persecuted LGBT people, but the truth is that the moment we create an exception saying that we cannot deport a person to an African country with a dodgy record on LGBT, everyone will claim to be LGBT—of course they will. I would do the same. If I were coming from Iraq, I would say I am a Christian. If I were coming from Syria, I would say I am gay. This is the problem we face. Every time we try to do anything, human rights lawyers drive a coach and horses through all our efforts.
So what are we going to do? I have said for two or three years now that the only solution—I suspect the Government will be dragged into this within a year—is to have a derogation, if necessary a temporary derogation during a national crisis, from the refugee convention, which prevents us from detaining people who claim to be asylum seekers. We will also have to have a derogation from the European convention on human rights.
I am a member of the Council of Europe, and I value the work of the Council of Europe, but the European Court of Human Rights is not a supreme court like our Supreme Court. It is not a supreme court like the American Supreme Court. It is a fundamentally political body, appointed on political grounds.
Until we have freedom of manoeuvre to have a real deterrent that tells the world, “If you land illegally on our shores, you will be detained and, ultimately, you will either have to go back where you came from or be deported,” we will never stop this problem. It is all right for the Labour party to talk about safe and legal routes, and about what it will try to do, but we all know that that did not work for the Dublin convention and it will not work if Labour takes power. President Macron will not suddenly change his mind. He will not take anyone back. We will be in this exact position in 15 months’ time if there is a Labour Government, and I predict that, if there is a Labour Government, they will simply leave this Act on the statute book pretty well unamended.
My constituency is a victim of all this, so what is the House going to do? This is utterly debilitating. We cannot go on like this. Please, can we have a plan?
Caroline Lucas
It is sadly not a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Talking about leaving or having derogations from human rights law is exactly what is wrong with the Government’s approach to this issue and what is wrong with this vile Bill.
With overwhelming support from across the political spectrum, and backed by Conservative peers and by religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other place is absolutely right to have inflicted a string of defeats on this vile, illegal Bill.
Lords amendment 1B, in the name of Baroness Chakrabarti, should be easy for any decent Government to accept, because it simply asks for compliance with the rule of law, which is the bedrock of our democracy. But the Government are attacking that foundation, forced to admit on the face of this immoral Bill that they are unable to say it is compatible with the 1950 European convention on human rights. By moving a motion to disagree to Lords amendment 1B, the Government are seeking to deny UK judges the right to interpret this law and to check it against compliance with the UK’s obligations under no fewer than five international conventions that we should be defending, not undermining.
The Minister in the other place tried to argue that a previous version of this amendment was trying to incorporate international law into domestic law and that, in doing so, it was an unacceptable change to our legal framework. I do not think that that is what the previous version did, but, for the avoidance of doubt, in this version Lords amendment 1B is explicit in calling for the interpretation of international law to ensure compliance with our international obligations. Indeed, Ministers will be aware of the contribution from Lord Hope, who served as deputy president of the Supreme Court and last week said that this amendment is a
“pure interpretation provision…entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions….it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1817.]
Adhering to the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, and other international laws we have signed up to should be non-negotiable. What a terrible state of affairs it is that the Government want to vote down an amendment seeking compliance with the rule of law.
The Government’s argument is that stripping vulnerable people of asylum and other human rights will stop other vulnerable people falling into the hands of the people traffickers. That is both morally bankrupt and utterly bogus. It is morally bankrupt because human rights are not earned or contingent on a person’s conduct or character, or on whether upholding those rights might affect someone else’s actions. Human rights are attached to a person by virtue of their humanity. Vulnerable people, including children, are being punished because of presumed future actions of adults. Furthermore, by disagreeing with Lords amendment 1B, Ministers face the charge of hypocrisy, as they disrespect international law and undermine migrants’ rights at a time of unprecedented international turmoil. Just last week, the Prime Minister was at a NATO summit absolutely saying that we need to uphold international law against the grotesque breaches by Putin in Ukraine. Yes, we do need to do that, but let us have a little moral consistency.
As well as being immoral, the Government’s argument about a deterrent effect is bogus and unevidenced. The Home Office’s own impact assessment, published just last month, is peppered with caveats about how undeliverable this policy is. It includes an admission that:
“The delivery plan is still being developed.”
The lack of evidence on deterrence in that document is glaring. It says that the Bill is “novel and untested”, so we do not know what impact it will have on deterrence. As I said earlier, a raft of children’s charities have pointed out that once routine child detention was ended in 2011, there was no proportional increase in children claiming asylum. Beyond that, there is a strong evidence to show that it is the precisely the hostility towards refuges exemplified by this Bill and the Government’s rejection of Lords amendments to it that fuels the grim and terrible trade in small boats that they claim they are against.
So any Member who votes to block the Lords amendments should admit that in doing so, they degrade the rule of law, dehumanise vulnerable refugees, attack our modern slavery laws, put LGBT refugees at grave risk, and that their approach will lead to the unconscionable mass detention and treatment of children, with no stated time limit to that detention—it is sickening. I will be voting to uphold the Lords amendments, because this Bill shames and degrades our country, our democracy and this House.
Jeremy Corbyn
I want to speak mainly about Lords amendment 1B, and to follow up on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I heard him make exactly the same argument in the Council of Europe, when, to the consternation of most of its members, he argued that Britain had to criticise and walk away from the European court of human rights because one case was found against Britain. Many more cases have been found against almost every other country that signed up to the European convention on human rights and, therefore, the Court.
I support Lords amendment 1B because it gives some protection under the 1950 European convention, the 1951 UN convention and the conventions on statelessness, on the rights of the child and on action against trafficking. The Lords amendment will mean that any decision has to be taken in accordance with those conventions. If the Government are opposing those, what message are they giving, other than that they have no respect for international law and for the conventions we helped to write and sign up for, and that they want to walk away from them? Walking away from them will mean that we have no regard for the rights of people seeking asylum if the European Court of Human Rights finds us to be wanting in that respect. Therefore, should any other country want to walk away from the European convention on human rights, for example, Turkey, Poland or Hungary, all of which have issues with their legislation in respect of the convention, we will be in no position to criticise anybody ever again. The idea that this country is facing a crisis so severe and so serious that we have to walk away from conventions that were hard fought for and have served the human rights of people across Europe very well is simply ridiculous. On a global scale, the numbers of people involved are enormous, because of economic stress around the world, wars, environmental degradation and destruction, and human rights abuse. That is why people seek asylum.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
As we did not have the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and it is being pushed through Parliament very quickly, I am pleased that the Lords have sent back amendments so that we can look again and consider the unintended consequences of parts of the Bill.
I will speak to the amendments on modern slavery. Evidence presented to the Home Affairs Committee revealed the urgent need to open up more escape routes for trafficking victims, including ending the current industrial-scale sexual exploitation, with women advertised on pimping websites up and down the land, in every Member’s constituency, on websites such as Vivastreet, which allows women to be raped multiple times a day. Under this legislation, if those women come forward to the authorities, they will not be offered help and assistance but will be detained and removed. Removing those modern slavery protections will do nothing towards doing what we all want to happen: to bring the organised crime groups orchestrating that abuse to justice. So I support Lords amendment 56B to maintain the status quo.
Secondly, I am disappointed that the Lords amendments on children have not been accepted. Children constitute a small minority of those making the crossing in small boats, often arriving frightened, frequently traumatised and always vulnerable. Such were the concerns of the Home Affairs Committee about the current treatment and experience of children who claim asylum in the UK that we recommended the Government commission an independent end-to-end review of the asylum system as it applies to and is experienced by children. However, instead of that, the Government are hurrying through a Bill to reduce children’s rights. No one in this House would want such treatment for their own children, which is why I support Lords amendments 33B, 36C and 36B remaining in the Bill.
Thirdly, a year ago the Home Affairs Committee published the results of our inquiry into channel crossings and identified a slew of robust measures that the Government could deploy to stop small boat crossings and create a fair and efficient asylum system. They included the creation of safe and legal routes and international initiatives by the National Crime Agency to combat people smugglers, both of which are the subject of Lords amendments under discussion today.
Stopping the people smuggling gangs will require a raft of carefully crafted, costed and evidence-based strategies, such as the ones put forward by the Home Affairs Committee. It is for that reason that I firmly support Lords amendment 102B on safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 103B on the National Crime Agency, Lords amendments 107B and 107C on a 10-year strategy and Lords amendment 23B on removal destinations for LGBT people and other persons. These measures and the Bill as a whole must be implemented in accordance with our international obligations, as is set out in amendment 1B.
Patrick Grady
A constituent contacted me recently and said that I seemed to be speaking an awful lot in the Chamber about immigration and asylum issues. I suppose that that is correct, but then that is because the Government allocate so much time in the Chamber to immigration and asylum issues. This is the third major piece of primary legislation on immigration since 2015. However, the majority of constituents—hundreds of constituents—who get in touch with me on each of these pieces of legislation tell me just how disappointed, if not horrified, they are at the Tory UK Government’s attitude to people who come here seeking refuge.
In rejecting all the Lords amendments before us today, the Government are showing just how hostile an environment they want to create—not just for asylum seekers, but for almost anyone who wants to make their home here in the UK. The fact that they will not accept Lords amendment 1B, which is a considerably softer version of what we discussed last week, demonstrates that. If the Government are truly committed to the international conventions listed in the amendment—particularly the 1951 refugee convention—they really should have no problem agreeing that they will form part of the interpretation of the Act when it comes into force.
I have also heard from constituents who want to ensure that LGBTQ people who arrive here from places where they can face imprisonment for simply being who they are cannot be removed to those countries. That is what the Lords are seeking to achieve in Lords amendment 23B. Accepting that amendment would save time and public money because otherwise, by the Minister’s own admission, claimants would have to make suspensive claims against removal to their country of origin. That is what the Minister says he wants to avoid. He wants to avoid loopholes and needless court cases. In that case, he should support Lords amendment 23B.
The amendments that seek to protect children from indefinite detention and that maintain human trafficking protections speak for themselves, as does the Government’s insistence on rejecting those amendments. The Government keep asking those of us who are opposed to the Bill for alternative proposals for dealing with irregular arrivals, and these are clearly outlined in Lords amendment 102B and in the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s amendments 107B and 107C. The Minister keeps saying that he wants to establish safe and legal routes. Well, that is what Lords amendment 102B will require him to do. I have met many asylum seekers through the Maryhill Integration Network and elsewhere who would much prefer to have come here from Eritrea, Iran or other countries that have been mentioned today through a safe and legal route, rather than the risks, costs and desperation of coming on lorries and boats.
The archbishop’s proposals for the development of a strategy on refugees and human trafficking are perhaps the most straightforward and easily implementable of all the clauses and amendments so far. The Government regularly accept amendments requiring them to publish strategies and reviews on all kinds of legislation. Perhaps they do not want to support this one because the transparency and accountability that would come with requiring the Government to undertake a long-term analysis and make a long-term plan in response to global population flows would reveal the true hollowness of the rest of their proposals—the inhumanity and the self-defeating implications of the hostile environment.
Millions of people will be on the move in the coming years and decades. They will be fleeing wars that we have financed and climate change that we have helped to cause. Experiences in southern Europe and the American midwest this week suggests that they will not just be moving from the southern hemisphere either. Nobody is saying that the United Kingdom should have completely open borders and take unlimited numbers of migrants, but we have to be prepared to take our fair share, just as other countries welcomed refugees fleeing famine and clearances on these islands not that many generations ago.
If Government Ministers and Back Benchers truly respect the role that the House of Lords is supposed to play in the UK constitution, they really ought to listen to the messages that their lordships are sending today and will send in the days to come. As it stands, people in Glasgow North and across Scotland are listening to the rhetoric of the Conservative Government and deciding that they want no more of it. They will be seeking the safe and legal route to independence as soon as possible.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I will begin by putting on the record my complete opposition to this horrendous Bill in its entirety. It is cruel and inhumane. It will put people at serious risk of further exploitation. It is stoking division within our society, and it undermines constitutional principles and human rights.
We are here today to focus on amendments, so I will briefly say that I support all the Lords amendments before us, particularly Lords amendment 1B, which others have already spoken about, in the name of my friend Baroness Chakrabarti. The amendment sets out the Bill’s intention to comply with a host of human rights conventions, including those with regard to the protection of human rights and the rights of the child, and against trafficking human beings.
It is vital that we underline our commitment to human rights, and, to quote the First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford,
“provide a warm welcome to all of those who seek sanctuary”.
That is particularly important as accommodation sites that have been identified by the Home Office for asylum seekers become targets for protests by the far right. That is happening in Wales at the moment. Amendment 1B is a modest and uncontroversial amendment. The Lords have backed it twice. More than 70 organisations have stated their support. The Government must yield and stop voting it down. If the Government are, as they say, confident that the Bill is compatible with the UK’s international law obligations, there is nothing to fear from the amendment.
I also support Lords amendment 102B in the name of Baroness Stroud, a Conservative peer, which provides for a duty to establish safe and legal routes. This is, again, a modest and uncontroversial amendment that could make an unsupportable Bill slightly better. We need to go much further. We need to expand safe routes, as organisations such as the Refugee Council, Care4Calais and the Public and Commercial Services Union have argued, in line with the amendment. We also need to tackle the backlog with a fair, humane and speedy processing system.
The Government have lost control over the asylum system. Their “stop the boats” rhetoric will not stop the boats because people are genuinely seeking asylum from war and poverty, and nobody would go on a boat, risking their life, unless they were desperate. We should be welcoming people to our country. What is contained in the Bill does not represent the type of country that I want to live in, or that I want my children or grandchildren to live in. What I and millions of others want is a country and society that is based on care, compassion, kindness, generosity, respect, inclusivity and, yes, solidarity.
I support today’s Lords amendments, which should be accepted, but if the Bill is passed this week, I and many others in this House—and, more importantly, outside it—will continue to oppose and campaign against this appalling piece of legislation at every opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. I call Claudia Webbe.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The provisions of the Bill are inhumane and punitive. It has not improved with the Government’s amendments sent to the other place, which the other place has rightly rejected, proposing their own counter-amendments.
The Government remain determined to allow themselves to detain and deport even unaccompanied children; to disqualify many refugees from even attempting to apply for asylum or to appeal against unjust decisions; and to give the Home Secretary sweeping powers to make new rules or apply them as the Government see fit. Even if every amendment proposed by the Lords was passed, this would remain an odious Bill, and one that shames this House and shames this country, but the latest Lords amendments would at least mitigate some of the worst harms of the legislation—legislation that the Home Secretary cannot even say is legal under international law.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I want to apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not think I indicated clearly enough that I wanted to speak. Thank you for your generous dexterity in finding time for me.
I want to say one simple thing about the assurances given so far on the detention of children: they are not sufficient. There are large numbers of children who will be detained. The definition of age-appropriate and child-appropriate accommodation is not clear enough.
I remind the House of my experience with Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency before 2014, when we legislated to prevent children being detained in detention centres. That detention centre was also meant to be age and child-appropriate, but what happened? It simply had a wing with a school and so on, and children were locked up in there for months on end. We saw the reports of individual civil society organisations that assessed the mental health implications of the detention of children at that stage.
So far, the Minister has told me that there is no Government intention to detain children in detention centres again, but, as I said to him before, intention is not good enough. We need legislation to prevent that from happening again. My fear is that, under pressure, Government Ministers will decide that there will be some appropriate decoration of some sections of Harmondsworth and it will be opened up for children again.
I was a house father at a children’s home in Hillingdon. It was one of the traditional children’s homes, run effectively as a family unit. I pursued my own career, and my wife was the house mother in charge and I was the house father. It was like a large fostering unit, basically, and we took in children who had been detained in Harmondsworth. Even before it was of the prison style that it is now, those children were, I believe, scarred for life. I did not think that we would ever return to locking children up in that way. The children we looked after often came to us after they had been lost within the system while their cases were being processed over a long time. They were often separated from their families, who came through other routes. I think the damage was a scandal of this country’s treatment of human beings.
That was why, from 2010 until 2012, we ran a campaign—across all religious groups, and with civil society organisations such as the Children’s Society—and published report after report. David Cameron came forward heroically and said, “We will never detain children again,” and we legislated for that in 2014. We are now going back to detaining children almost indefinitely for some categories. We have not got the assurances that we need about where they will be detained or about the care, comfort and succour that they will have to support them. As a result, if we allow this legislation to go through, it will be a stain upon this House and upon society overall for a long time to come.
I ask Members to think again. We now go back into ping-pong with the other House, which is calling simply for a realistic time limit on the detention of children so that they are not damaged beyond repair in the way they were 10 years ago. I do not think that a simple amendment to set a time limit on children suffering in detention when they arrive in this country is an awful lot to ask of the Government. They often come from countries where they have suffered enough; we should not impose even more suffering on them.
Robert Jenrick
With the leave of the House, let me say a few words to close this short debate.
As I said at the outset, when we met and voted 18 times last week, we supported the Bill time and again. In each of those 18 votes, we in this democratically elected Chamber voted to stop the boats, secure our borders and enable this important Bill to move forward. Now is the time for the other place, which is, at its heart, as a number of colleagues have said—
Robert Jenrick
I will not—we have heard from the hon. Gentleman a number of times.
The other place is ultimately a revising Chamber, and it is now time for it to support the Bill. Today’s debate has, like some of the others, been short on new arguments and completely short of any credible alternative. I go back to the arguments made in the other place by many distinguished Members of that House and former Members of this House, most notably the noble Lord Clarke, who said clearly that he was not able, having listened to the debate for hour after hour, to discern a single credible alternative to the Government’s plan. It is incumbent on those who want to vote against the Bill to bring forward alternatives, but we have not heard a single one.
I used to say that Labour Members do not have a plan to stop the boats, but that is not true. They do have a plan, but it is one that is so dangerously naive that it is a recipe for even more crossings and even greater misery. They would create a massive pull factor by giving economic migrants crossing the channel from a safe place such as France the ability to work sooner. They would attempt to grant their way out of the problem and sacrifice the remaining integrity of the system. They would create bespoke country-specific routes for every instance of instability in the world, which would impose more and more pressures on local communities.
Is it not the most telling fact in this debate that today, in the shadow Immigration Minister’s own town of Aberavon, there is not a single asylum seeker? If Members want more asylum seekers, they should have the honesty to have them in their own constituency. From the letters I receive from Labour MPs, I assume that they would house asylum seekers even more expensively than we do today, with no regard to the taxpayer. I am not clear how they would remove illegal migrants when their own leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), campaigned to close an immigration removal centre, tens of Labour MPs have opposed the reopening of two other centres, and the Labour party’s own membership recently voted to abolish them altogether.
The fact is that as its Members vote against the Bill today, Labour’s message to the law-abiding people of this country—from Stoke to Blackpool to Peterborough—when it comes to illegal migration is quite simply “Put up with it.” Its message to the British families who have to wait longer for social housing or GP appointments is “Tough luck”, and its message to the hard-working taxpayer faced with the ever-rising costs of the system is “Cough up.” It is only the Conservative party that can see the fundamental injustice of illegal migration—that it ultimately affects the poorest people in society the most—and has the determination to fix it. That is why the Bill is so important, and it is why the Lords now need to back it.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 1B, 7B and 90D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In Division No. 304, four Members nodded through the No Lobby were not included. So the result should have been: Ayes 284, and Noes 226.
After Clause 60
Ten-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 107B and 107C.—(Robert Jenrick.)
Royal Assent
Thursday 20th July 2023
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 7 December 2022 - (7 Dec 2022)