Lords Chamber

Wednesday 3rd September 2025

(began 4 hours, 10 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:53
15:53
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before the formal third reading of the bill, I will make a brief statement on the devolution status of the bill. During its development in Parliamentary passage the Minister for Employment rights competition has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement tween officials. As a result I can confirm that legislative consent motion's have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament have also agreed and LCM which covers the majority of the bill's provisions. However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the Social Care Negotiating Bodies table in my name at report stage and accepted by your Lordship's House also engage the consent process. Owing to the day these amendments were tabled in the Scottish Parliament summer recess, it's not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess and noting it has the support of the Scottish government, we are hopeful the process around the supplementary LCM will progressively.

More broadly ungrateful to ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved governments for the remainder of the bill's passage including as we look ahead to its implementation the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is these -- this will be read a time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. and Klaus Hunt and 62, Amendment Lord Burns.
15:55
15:56
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
for tabling this amendment which I acknowledge is a simple tidying up one, following changes made to the bill at report stage. As I say it's a tidying up amendment and therefore we accepted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It's been a privilege to now pass. It's been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. This bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in tide on the damaging trend of in work poverty.

It will benefit millions of people across the country and this is physically the case for those in insecure and low paid employment. Taking just one paid employment. Taking just one example, over 2 million people on zero hours contracts could benefit from the rights to guaranteed hours from the rights to guaranteed hours and the right to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade studies it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for a long-term sustainable and secure economic growth.

Throughout the Bill's second reading, 11 days of committee and four days of report, noble Lords from across your Lordship's House have carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have ended up agreeing on every issue I believe we do agree on the importance of the bill, as well as the need to improve workers rights and level the playing field for good employers. I'm therefore grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the chamber and would like to thank all noble Lords that I and make ministerial colleagues are spoken to for their time and wisdom.

The mention every member of your Lordship's House that I've engaged with risks taking almost as long as the committee stage did. And so while I will refrain from doing that I would like to put on record my particular thanks to a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the dedicated support from the frontbench. Over the course of the Bill's passage we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders including noble Lords and external bodies.

My noble friends have been generous with their time and their wisdom and I/O them a great debt. Similarly must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Baroness Smith of Mills, and Baroness Merron all of whom are presented from the Dispatch Box. This represents a whole government approach to bringing about a long overdue improvement to workers rights. It's been a pleasure debating the bill's many clauses with noble Lords, noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Noel Hunt of Wirral.

Who have continuously made the case under half of the Official Opposition. Likewise the noble Lord Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and the noble Baroness Baroness Kramer who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes in relation to non- disclosure agreements where I was delighted to see the amendment I brought forward at report being accepted to introduce a world leading framework on MDA productions. I would like to say how gratifying it is to seek the noble Lord Lord Fox back in his place and I'm sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery good health.

I should also pay particular contributions to the noble Lord Lord Goodlad, whilst of course Lord Fox's wisdom could not be replaced, Lord Goddard was a worthy and often entertaining substitute for that. I'm grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan, Baroness O'Grady and Baroness Lister for the valued contributions in relation to seafarers bereavement league, trade unions and parental leaf. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the officials of public servants who have provided dedicated support throughout, including not only those in my department and the whips office but across government, and in the public sector.

In particular I would like to thank my private office and the bill and policy teams. Noble Lords had met with them will be as impressed as I am with the professionalism and knowledge. Finally I end by acknowledging and often quite yet essential work of house staff. This includes the clerks, the doorkeepers, dining staff, police, cleaners and countless others. This House Passat lady denied on many occasions, which is only possible because of these workers and those keeping us safe and cleaning up after us.

I'm sure that they will have watched the debate with interest and I hope that they will find their reward for their hard work and the renewed workplace rights that they will workplace rights that they will As we send this bill to the other place we can await their amendments. I'm sure we are all eager for a swift consideration to ensure the sooner people can access these rights the better. In the meantime, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. I'm conscious this is Third
16:02
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm conscious this is Third Reading and I fully support the bill, but I wanted to take this last opportunity to make a brief opportunity to make a brief intervention to ask for glitter -- greater clarification in relation to clause 40. It is an issue I raised a Committee stage. First I want to thank my noble from the Minister for helpful response at committee and in the subsequent letter she wrote. I know she shares an interest in ensuring the bill does not impose undue burdens on the HEE sector given the key role played by universities in the industrial strategy.

Universities wholeheartedly support the enactment of the bill and will be working to ensure fair employment practises are maintain and strengthen. As autonomous institutions, universities, unlike other organisations in the public sphere, will be requested to absorb the additional cost that this legislation imposes. In advance of the bill becoming law and ahead of the consultation process, I would like to seek further clarity and assurances on behalf of the higher education sector on three specific issues. First, in her letter, my noble friend indicated that the code would specify to which bodies and value of procurement activities clause 30 would apply.

It is possible that the procurement of universities are exempted due to their nature and value. As my noble friend able to elaborate further on this? And allay any outstanding concerns on the lead up to the consultation process. Second, it is still not clear whether pensions will also be subject to the no less favourable terms, which could result in considerable additional burdens for institutions where there are legacy arrangements in place. Third, there is uncertainty over whether the provisions in clause 30 would be retrospectively applied.

Decisions on both of these areas can make a material difference to the extent of financial impact experienced by the higher education sector. I recognise that these are likely to be significant subjects of the consultation, but if my noble friend is able to provide any reassurances in advance of this process, that would be very much welcome. The sector is so critical in delivering the skills needed for the UK's successful future and the hopes and aspirations of communities across the UK.
16:04
16:06
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to also begin by expressing my gratitude to noble lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also wish to thank the ministers for the briefings in the meetings and for the extensive correspondence by letter. The data provided during the course of these proceedings. I would also like to thank the bill team in the ministers private offices.

Further I would like to place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for their diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships House, as the noble Lady the Minister said, have enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism will stop and I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these benches who have been fantastic throughout. We take a slightly different view as to this bill, we think it is a terrible bill.

It's terrible for workers, it's terrible for businesses, particularly small businesses, and it is terrible for the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come unemployment has risen every single month under this government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach five% and that is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip, that is a trend.

As a direct result of misguided economic choices and if this bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further. The Chancellor has deepened the difficulty of long-term borrowing costs have reached their highest level since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent and once along the provisions of this bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster. The bill itself imposes nothing new but new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by peninsula, the UK's largest HR and employment law consultancy...

Will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims and inevitability under these provisions was so-called day one writes in the ill thought out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the governments own impact assessment confirms those risks. The noble Lord confirmed by letter that the government itself is funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days. Yet the backlog already exceeds 15,000 cases. It doesn't take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and 1/2 simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation.

Indeed the governments own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal right will increase claims by around 15%. So while I commend the government's actions as it regards recruiting of new judges, the bill still adds more pressure into a system already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. Lord Young of Acton tells me to free speech union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.

One cannot help but observe that the bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the government's approach in their handling of the junior doctors dispute, but by also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as two%, the government is preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no business -- experience in dealing with small unions completely unprepared.

I think we should be mindful of a darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 80s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose for reasons of conscience or necessity to cross the picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracisation. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It's precisely that environment which this bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it.

One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own active scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here. At the same time, the governments own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity. Yet while ministers fail to acknowledge that the poor persecuted these -- activities in the... Soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the government seeks to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation and that will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.

The bill also takes a regressive step with regards to political funds. The government proposes that contributions to a union's political fund should once again be made on an opt out basis rather than an opt in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the Certification Officer requires unions to disclose payments above a threshold of 2,000 pounds. Many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, aren't recorded in their internal cows -- are recorded.

It should be a matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why then, as described by the Minister as a notable administrative requirement. As is to be the standard disclosure for other organisations in the future. References have been made to practises prior to 2016 when opacity prevailed, yet rather than strengthening transparency, the government seems intent on concealment. That stands in stark contrast to what's applied to companies which must provide full disclosure of political donations.

Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the government is serious about transparency, it should be insisting on openness, not enabling the rivers. -- The reverse. An organisation called the General Federation of trade unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, session on what is described as Employment Rights Bill two.

Some might say that such a bill would administer the coup de grace after the firing squad of this bill. It also features a session including -- entitled Viva LaSala Deraa dad, stand with Latin America against Trump. I laughed when I read that, it's not serious politics, it is infantile and pathetic. If they truly wish to offer international lessons, they might examine the havoc that their counterparts have wreaked upon Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity is too often with shared quality collapsing currencies and vanishing investment.

We are focused on the rights of British businesses and their employees in the TUC should do the same. I would also like to highlight clause 30 concerning the right to be a company

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which was tabled by Lord Palmer. The noble Lord Sharpe has reminded me what I've been missing
16:14
16:14
16:16
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
I'm properly not going to find a lot of favour with what I'm about to say. I will start off by reminding the House that I'm the honorary president of the pilots union, union that does not go on strike, does not regard militant industrial action as being an achievement, indeed, a dispute that leads to a lot of work for our employees is a failure, not a success. I would also like to remind the House that 30% of trade union members vote for the Conservative Party.

Now, people might wish to say that there is something wrong with them. I don't think there is. The matter is that there is very little politics in trade unionism. I have sat through trade unionism. I have sat through several years of the executive of the organisation, we don't discuss politics. Occasionally things will, we have to comply with some relation or the other and there may be a discussion. But the discussion is probably about the cost of complying, and one of the things I have noticed is the huge growth in legal fees that the union is dishing out.

We are the nearest, the legal profession has got to recruiting agency. We always seem to be a lot of money to get us around the law. And I'm not aware our union has ever broken the law. I hope we will move forward and regard this bill as a starting point of a consensual approach to industrial relations. Because we are all basically in the same side. I mentioned that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. In my particular union, the pilot union, it's over 50%.

And they are just not really impressed with this punch and Judy approach to trade union legislation which has become so much, what is happening in recent years. So I appeal to all of the House, government and the opposition, to work together in a consensual basis for trade unionism. I look across and icy my friend Brendan Barber, who did enormously good work at ACAS, and that is the sort of organisation that we need. But attempts to smooth out the problems that we have in industry, because at the end of the day, yes I'm going to wind up, at the end of the day, our employers want a wage, and our employers want a successful business.

We've had nice that there should help to. I certainly hope it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. And I wish the bill well. We have certainly improved this
16:20
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have certainly improved this bill during its passage but it bill during its passage but it remains very bad bill. It's bad for business, which means it's bad for the economy, and it's just terrible for people who want jobs. It's also a dreadful time to be making such significant changes. The economy is stressed. The government has failed to time inflation and we now have the highest rate in the G7. Speculation abounds about how big the blackhole is in the Chancellor's budget preparations and bond markets can see our economy is in trouble and they have heightened gilt yields to levels not seen since 1998 full stops telling is on the slide.

It feels like the 1970s all over again. Businesses are still reeling from the impact of the national insurance increases, on top of the significant increases in minimum wage release. This is orally taking its tail. Already. The valleys Ocean foundation have said that they reckon that the payment rate will having might have increased to 5% this month. Almost all the employment data are negative. Payroll numbers are down, job vacancies down, the PMI employment index, down, economic activity, op. Against this background creating new employment rights going back to 1960s trade union legislation is not far short of suicidal for the economy.

The government say this bill will cost £5 billion, adding to employment costs, and most of that wilful the Assembly sector. -- Most of that wilful on the Assembly sector. The bigger problem is that the bill will work against economic growth is said of creation, we will have more job destruction. My Lords, any other place the government has an opportunity to accept that modest changes that your Lordship's House has made to this bill. These changes are moderate and they will not remove all of the bill's harmful effects but I hope that the government at least take this opportunity to modify the impact of this bill.
16:22
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I think we have spent 13 days in this chamber's good nursing this critical bill so I do think the ministers on the front bench for the stamina and perseverance. This bill has tested the patience of noble Lords from all sides of this House so I will not test your patience further by going over the same arguments that we heard during committee and report, very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and pretty much the whole of the private sector.

They are asking in light of this bill how committed the government really is to delivering on its overriding number one mission, of real sustainable economic growth. And how this bill would impact on the two crucial ingredients on growth, job creation and as we have heard, productivity. In terms of job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10- year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years and this bill that is set to accelerate that downward trend.

Secondly, the need for greater productivity across our 30 million workforce, for employers, are currently paying an average 5% annual wage increases for close to 0 productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds on workers pockets. But I'm afraid it's as illusory as it is inflationary and will only contribute to ever widening black holes. This bill will as the government admits push up even further cost of employment, and damage the risk would equations behind recruitment, promotion and employers ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews.

A that is bad news for productivity and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
16:24
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, can I respond to my noble friend Baroness Warwick about the concerns of university UK. Given this stage of the parliamentary passage of the Employment Rights Bill's reached and the fact the House has agreed to close 36 should stand part of the bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as noble friend knows, I have written to her on this whole issue and the letter is available for all members to read. I would say to her that we do fully recognise the need not to impose disappointed burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and to this end we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two tier code.

The consultation will consider the extent to which the public authorities, including higher education provisions, providers are required to follow its provisions. While I can't comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applied to Higher Education Bill of. Secondly can I thank the noble Lord Lord Goddard for his kind comments. And I think it's fair to say we have enjoyed working with him.

I'm sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had up until this point had very courteous discussions around all of this. And the fact that there are relatively few issues that are now remaining between us I think is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue and I hope that because there are so few areas continuing disagreement that we can reach a conclusion on this bill delicately.

I don't want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. I have to say listening to this debate this afternoon is a miracle that we have only got 10 also issues that are still outstanding because it feels like we're back at square one but I do feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions. I would just say to noble Lords that when we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights which was way out of date and these are the issues that we have been and are continuing to work to address.

We are doing it in all sorts of ways, if you look at our small business strategy that we lost over the summer, the Industrial Strategy, the trade strategy, all of that is designed to make the UK a place that can do, to do business with an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future. Just in terms of the course I have been provoked on this in terms of the state of the economy, in the three months to June the GDP grew by 0.5% meaning punitive growth has already exceeded the OBR forecast.

Since the start of Parliament 380,000 also been added, Britain has become the most active place to invest in the world, joint top with India, following it still with the US. The FTSE 100 index rushed to the 9,000 point mark this July, sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at the fastest rate since the last election, according to research in NatWest and confidence amongst UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment according to the Lord's business barometer.

I could go on. We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and in that context we are positive about the jobs that will be provided and they will be good jobs and they will be jobs where people feel that they have a stake in the employment and feel they have a positive future. I'm sorry we ended up on that note and I'm sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference but in the meantime I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and
16:29
None Portrait Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill –committee stage (day 4) - part one
-

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Lord Hanson of Flint.
16:29
16:30
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 104 in my name. And in the name of my in my name. And in the name of my noble friend Lord Cashman. In so doing also I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Dobbs who in my absence moved and spoke to amendments in my name. He did so with characteristic thoughtfulness, eloquence and I'm pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude and pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude to the noble Lord Lord Cashman who is willing to move and This amendment does something essentially very simple.

In the sense of the bill before you Lordships House in the legislation that it relates to. I hope the committee will bear with me. It requires a complicated explanation in some ways and I will do my best to try not to complement -- complicated anymore. Essentially it seeks to repeal section 59 of Illegal Migration Act and in so doing remove seven anomalies I will come to. Section 59 extends the current inadmissibility process for certain asylum claims and other human rights claims from what was initially, broadly, those who came from the EEA states were one of two other European states or countries that were deemed safe.

The mechanism for this in section 59 is a list of safe states which are countries from which an asylum or human rights claim must be declared inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply. That list can be added to and the list that was originally drafted and the clause was increased to and the clause was increased to include both India and Georgia. By regulations that were laid on 8 November 2023. If I could detain your lordships committee -- I could detain your lordships committee for quite a time explaining what these countries were in and respect for human rights on that day, but I will read this short in telling the committee what is the source of this information, noble lords can find and read it for themselves.

What I intend to do is read from the United States 2022 country report on human rights practises in Georgia, which included a statement which I will read in short. Significant human rights issues included credible reports of torture or inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. Arrests or incarcerations, serious problems with the independence of the judiciary, along with investigations and prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated. Arbitrary or unlawful invasion of privacy, serious expression in media.

I will not read the rest of it. In the case of India, the first three lines of the United States 2022 country report practises in India included the following, significant human rights issues included credible reports of unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents. Torture of cruel or inhuman degrading treatment by police and officials. Harsh and life- threatening conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, political prisoners or detainees, arbitrary or unlawful in privacy. I will stop there.

There are many other lines that come with this, but despite this information and other information, the government then thought that these two countries thought that these two countries were candidates for states and would therefore be places from which certain asylum or human rights claims would be declared inadmissible. It seems to be this amendment to repeal to this I believe is in harmony with the animating spirit of this legislation. In repealing section 59 and in doing so not only it terminates this proposition in section 59 that you can declare states to be safe in this way despite the evidence, it will remove certain anomalies I will come to.

It does privately extend -- presently extend other human rights claims. The extension between human rights claims and claim to asylum is critical but section 59 conflates them. Unlike asylum claims, many human rights claims are founded not on assessment of the country safety, but individuals connection with this country, the family ties, the relationships. You risk imposing what amounts in an anomalous fashion to a blanket ban in consideration of human rights for the country because they are deemed to be safe when it's irrelevant to the nature of the claim.

Section 59 deprives individuals of a right to appeal as these claims because they are disregarded from the outset, unconsidered rather than refused and therefore there is no right to appeal. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, but what might be considered exceptional circumstances are defined in the legislation in a nonexhaustive way with narrow examples such as human rights obligations under the ECHR, suspension from the EU by country itself. They are inapplicable to states such as India, leaving us with legal uncertainty over and above all the other problems that are with this process.

Noble lords will no exceptional circumstances have been narrowly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the past, with compelling reasons to believe that there is a clear risk but the individual be liable to persecution in the country of origin. This test is incorrect for private and family life claims. Again, result of the conflation of human rights and asylum claim. Returning to the list of safe countries, I believe this involves the other place and you Lordships House being asked to do something it is ill-equipped to do.

A list of safe states in section 59 of the illegal migration act may be altered by the government, but I for one would feel myself placed in a bad situation when asked about whether a member of a religious minority could be considered safe and parts of India. Whether a young boy or girl is safe in India given to the very high instance of FGM in that community or whether a gay man in Georgia can be considered as residing in a state country.

To reach an informed judgment in these issues would require something I don't claim to possess.... In the case of Georgia drew my attention to a case of a man who mere months before Georgia was declared safe was granted refugee status in the UK. What happened to him after coming out as gay was he was physically attacked by his own family members, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses and had an exorcism performed on him at his local church.

His family was detected with the police and Georgia do not get either of them. But the United Kingdom did, despite his legislation being in power the time. Considering this case and others like it, lack of an obligation to keep a list of safe countries under review is troubling and above all the criticisms I have. You Lordships House needs no reminder of what accompanied the decision to legislate this to the absolute and perpetual safety of the country of Rwanda.

I worry the absence of a reviewing mechanism for this list threatens to put us in a similarly insidious position. It is not been fully commenced, but given the home office is granted asylum or humans rights protections to hundreds of people from the countries in the lists in recent years, even a shadow of the section 59 provision is damaging. If commenced, these individuals will have no way to challenge a decision wrongfully to deport them. Either the Home Office have spin granting asylum and human rights claims been acting out of superfluity of compassion of these countries that they are in all circumstances safe is wrong.

It's my belief that section 59 of Illegal Migration Act's ill-conceived, ties the hands of the Home Secretary under this provision must declare asylum and human rights claims in these countries as inadmissible save the largely undefined exceptional circumstances are detected and it fully risks involving us going forward under a new government and multiple breaches of our obligations to international law. I urge the committee to support and I begged to move. -- I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member proposed, page 38, leave out 58 and insert 59. -- Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed. Arise to support amendment 104
16:40
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
and I am proud to follow my noble friend for the passionate and eloquent way he introduces amendment. He spoke passionately and deeply about the young man Noah and the experience he had in Georgia. Before I speak further in support of this amendment, to which I vetted my name, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton who died on 6 May this year. And with whom I had the privilege to work alongside on immigration and asylum legislation in your Lordships House.

He was always seeking to bring justice and fairness where there was none, to give a Vos -- voice to the voiceless. His contributions will be greatly missed. Having listened previously to interventions on this bill, it is clear to me and to the media stigmatisation of migrants, that this vital work of bringing justice and fairness to the system must go on. I support amendment 104 which has been put to your Lordships House so eloquently by my noble friend and I also welcome and support amendment 203E.

These amendments bring us back to addressing the primary reasons of those seeking asylum. It is vital that each case is processed solely on its merits and not on the presumption of safety of the country from which the person has fled. Despite the issue of exceptional circumstances, to which my noble friend has already referred. Lord Brown has put the case exhaustively and therefore there is very little for me to add. I believe this amendment to be essential because section 59, once fully commenced, will make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals introduced by the Nationality and introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

This could result in violations of the UK's international human rights obligations and I am grateful to the briefings that I've received, particularly from the Refugee Council. Section 59 of Illegal Migration Act extends the current general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals of EU member states to cover human rights claims and to cover nationals of other countries deemed to be safe. Despite concerns expressed about the safety of those three states, namely India, Albania and Georgia.

There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. Concerns have been raised by numerous organisations, protection issues and Albania, India and Georgia. Including those facing women and girls, victims of trafficking and minorities including certain religious groups and LGBTQ+ people. In relation to the latter, we must recall and recognise the Supreme Court judgment of 2010, Hg Rand and HT Cameroon versus the Home Secretary.

Particularly in relation to the lived experiences of such individuals seeking asylum. Finally, there is, I believe, a fundamental issue with legislating for so-called member safe states. While the list of safe states in section 59 of Illegal Migration Act may be altered by the executive through affirmative regulations, members of this House have expressed concern time and time again and particularly throughout the passage of the safety of Rwanda act 2024 that we are institutionally ill-equipped to deal decisively and to determine the safety of a state.

We have also expressed in your Lordships House concerns that we have been repeatedly asked to rubberstamp such decisions of the government of the day. It is our contention that the safety of the state must be designated by a review on the basis of reliable, objective information from a range of sources and regularly updated and published. I urge the government to consider and reflect widely on this sensible and notable amendment and to work with us and with the noble Lord, with us and with the noble Lord,
16:47
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
with us and with the noble Lord, I'm certainly not seeking to take issue with the noble Lord Lord issue with the noble Lord Lord Brown. I appreciate we are in very topical territory, and I confess topical territory, and I confess that I have found it quite difficult to know how to approach this bill to know how to approach this bill following the statement on Monday, following the statement on Monday, because there is a lot to come, and I know the Minister was her last, we will have the opportunity to debate will have the opportunity to debate it but of course we don't have that much detail, and what we are asked much detail, and what we are asked to consider is a bill written before that statement.

But we will have that statement. But we will have opportunities to consider the Home opportunities to consider the Home Office's proposals. And today's debate will give the Minister a flavour, if he needs it, because I don't think he will be surprised by don't think he will be surprised by it very much of what is to come by way of our responses. I can too, and grateful to the various organisations which briefed us on section 59. They have clearly spelled-out the distinction between asylum and human rights claims, and as they say, the latter, human rights claims, in many cases have nothing to do with the country's general safety or perceived safety.

They are about someone's connections to this country, their dependency and family ties here, as I said, this is topical. Made by people seeking lawfully to enter or remain with their UK-based family. Among other things, this means, because there's no right of appeal, the course claims are not refused, they are just not considered. Of course, and it is of course, to me, as the noble Lord Lord Cashman has said, a country may be safe generally but not to particular groups or sections of the community and the Supreme Court has recognised that a serious risk of persecution can exist as a general feature of life which applies to a recognisable section of the community.

This amendment takes us back to the 2002 act which is what section 59 amends, that act allows for exceptional circumstances, and what they may include is the subject of my The new 85, A, that would provide that they include where the claimant is at substantial risk of significant personal harm, either as a member of a minority group or as an individual. The amendment also would omit Albania, Georgia and India from the list of those countries which are automatically safe, which I put in 'so, for everyone -- which I put in inverted commas.

Noah has been example and he was my example for Georgia. Where there is a lack of effective state protection for LGBTQIA plus people in the face of the considerable violence. To add to what has been said, he said no one can know you are gay, if you are gay you have two options, hospital or exorcism. This man was attacked by his own family, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses, and subjected to exorcism. The Home Office country note for India refers to gender-based violence, with women and girls in Ruble areas or from certain castes and tribes, especially vulnerable.

-- Rural areas. Institutional prejudices meaning violence against Muslims, Christians and again certain castes and tribes, going unpunished, into the country note describes the active involvement of the police. In Albania, trafficking is rife. In the top three nationalities, should we call on the top of the bottom three, of people referred into that national referral mechanism, recognised to be victims of trafficking, Albania is one of those three, whether you regarded at the top of the bottom. It is internationally recognised that domestic and international trafficking, including trafficking to the UK, is rife.

And the families of victims themselves are threatened. I have been involved with the case of a young, well he was a young man when he came, his application has not been determined yet, but the threat to his family has been a major factor in his response to what has affected his life. Sexual and domestic violence is widespread in Albania. So wherever we are going in legislative terms, with this, we have to agonise the situation that noble Lords have already described.
16:52
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to address amendment to hundred and three, J, and I will declare my interest as a barrister practising in public law and in the immigration space. As noble Lords will have noticed, the amendment to hundred and three, J, doesn't sit happily with the other amendments in this group. It is not directly about the inadmissibility of an asylum claim. But it is on a very important point. The Refugee Convention of 1951 says that if an asylum seeker has entered the country illegally, he is not to be punished or penalised for doing so, provided he came directly from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened by persecution.

Specifically, the 1951 Convention says, the contracting States shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of article 1, that is the persecution provision in the convention, enter or a present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry and presence. As Professor Jonathan Haidt, the professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at Oxford, and I pointed out in our paper published in 2020 by this exchange, entitled immigration, Strasbourg and initial overreach, the drafting of proper meaning of article 31.1 of the refugee were compellingly expanded by the noble Lords Lord Wood of else very and Lord Marks.

Dissenting in the case of Ashour against the Crown, 2008, UK House of Lords, 31. In doing so, they demonstrated the error of the living instrument interpretation, advanced by the majority, in that case and by the divisional Court in the case of the crowd at Oxbridge Magistrate's Court, ex parte demic, 2001, Queens bench, 667. The erroneous but raining interpretation is predicated on that motion, plainly rejected by the draughtsmen of article 31 of the Refugee Convention. But refugees passing through safe country A en passing through safe country A en route to safe country B and/or C or DoE, should have the option to choose to seek asylum in B, C, or D, or a.

This is plainly wrong. It's plainly not what was intended by that state bodies when they signed the Refugee Convention in 1951. It is time that we corrected the law in this regard. Amendment 203, J, together with amendment 203, I, to be debated in a later group, restores the proper meaning of coming directly. And in doing so, it provides a solution to the nightmare of the dangerous channel crossings and uncontrolled entry. Refugee Convention purposefully distinguishes between those who are directly from a country where they are in danger and those who do not and there is no immunity from immigration law for those not coming directly.

This was entirely intentional. This amendment aims to vindicate the distinction and 6 to bring an end to the practice of widening the Refugee Convention beyond the terms the United Kingdom and the other states agreed. Let's look at the terms of the amendment to hundred and three, J. The amendment works like this: Secretary of State has a duty to refuse a claim for asylum. If a person meets the conditions set out. The first condition you will see at subclause to is that they have entered, they require lead into the United Kingdom and they have done so without such leave, whether illegally or otherwise.

And the second condition at subclause three is that in entering or arriving, as mentioned in subsection number two, that the person did not come directly to that UK country in which the person's life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. But the words taken from the convention. Subclause letter for four clarity specifies for the purposes of subsection 3, a person is not to be taken as having come directly to the United Kingdom from country in which the life and liberty are threatened as mentioned liberty are threatened as mentioned in the subsection if incoming from such a country they passed through all stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.

In paragraph 5, to make it absolutely crystal-clear, for the removal of doubt, but without limitation, for the purposes of subsection 3, a person has passed through all stopped another country outside the UK if they depart in a boat, vessel, or aircraft from France, or any other European postal stage. If this provision were enforced, would you risk your life in the channel in a small boat if you knew that you asylum claim would be bound to be refused? You would not suggest.

This amendment to use the slogan so favoured by the prime minister, this amendment would smash the gangs by destroying the business model. And it does so remaining a member of the Refugee Convention. Unlike the timid tinkering around the edges, we see in almost all of this rather performative bill, this amendment proposes a real beneficial solution and the Home Office should grab this amendment with both hands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support Lady Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, E and declare my interest as a vice president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe and chair of human rights liver chair of human rights liver international and I want to be fully just mention something that has happened this afternoon in Georgia. happened this afternoon in Georgia. Today, somebody who was imprisoned Today, somebody who was imprisoned by the Georgian Dream on trumped up by the Georgian Dream on trumped up drug cases and imprisoned has finally been freed.

Astonishingly after the regime admitted in court planting drugs on him at a protest.
16:59
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This is the third such case to have come in recent weeks. Many, many others, thousands of others, remain in prison and over the last four months, leaders and senior activists, were told by the regime they had to go into Parliament and kowtow to the new regime, immediately imprisoned after that, and that became a contempt of Parliament and some of them have got sentences of 7 to 15 years. These are the high-profile people hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets every night, some of them are finding that like this man they are ending up in prison that strictly no roots.

Georgia is not a safe place. I support my noble friend's amendment for this. During the passage of the safety of Rhondda two act, we repeatedly said Rhondda was not safe and that continues. The government has imprisoned macro. government has imprisoned macro. She has been nominated for prizes, she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison and members of her party the same, many have tried to escape and seek asylum elsewhere for their safety.

Rwanda was not then and is not now say. I'm really pleased to see that at least we are now discussing that. These amendments are important and will recount to another group later today, I'm going to raise the issue about how appropriate it is to have a list in a regulation when things can move as fast as they have happened in Georgia recently. And I think that that is worth exploring, I will leave that until we get to
17:01
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to strongly and emphatically support the amendment put forward, amendment 203J, the new clause after the close 48 moved so ably by my Noble Friend, Lord Murray. And I think it is very important at this juncture we put some context into what this is about because it is a very fast-moving debate about involvement with the refugee Convention in 1931 and our obligations therein and also I think the convention on human rights and the Noble Lord the Minister will know these issues have been debated recently by his Noble Friends including the Noble Lord and the former Home Secretary and even the esteemed members, other esteemed members of the House.

But we are not here necessarily to talk about the application or delegation from the ECHR, although I will push into potentially updating the lordships house on progress made in the view of article 8 of the convention which has been Government undertaking for several months. The fact of the matter is we do have a crisis and this particular amendment seeks to address indeed the kernel of the rationale of this is the crisis we have on the crossings.

Small boat crossings are costing us £5.6 million per day in terms of accommodation in hotels for asylum seekers. That is the equivalent of 73,000 visits to accident and emergency by others everyday. The National Audit Office tells us that in this Parliament across the country £15 billion we have had 180,000 individual crossing since 2018 and this year alone as of yesterday, 28,000 arrivals. The point being this is an existential emergency in terms of the protection of our bodies and therefore we do need to look at different ways of approaching the situation.

And on that basis I think the Minister should look very carefully because it is not about withdrawing from the convention but it is about a very robust interpretation of the legal obligations that we have specifically under section 31 of the convention. And I will not try the patience of the House by repeating the specific wording of that convention which I would suggest is being misinterpreted quite often by some members of the judiciary and others and, of course, some charity groups that have a vested interest in this area.

And my Noble Friend is quite right to talk about the reach of the concept that has developed since the 1970s of the living instrument doctrine which has informed decisions of the European Court of human rights in this particular area. And I accept the Government is in a difficult position at the moment because we were the first party to look at the regulations /tool 13 and will now we are waiting for the decision and the new asylum and management regulation to 2024 which will come into full effect in June, 2026.

I think this is a question of fairness because if you go to the writer and the asylum will see to be naturalised as a British citizen to get indefinite leave to remain you are, as you know from the remarks of the Home Secretary earlier this week the subject to some pretty significant restrictions in terms of who you can bring in, but your salary or pay should be and your access to public funds. And that is, perhaps, as it should be, but if you arrived by a small boat and you have no such restrictions you are developing them in a hotel and you are subject to limited checks in terms of security and you are, perhaps, going to eventually be reunited with family members will access NHS services, local authority and housing associations.

There is the issue of the disproportionality and unfairness between those two groups and I do think that the important thing we need to remember is a proposal put by might Noble Friend Lord Murray addressing this issue in a way that it would not cause legal chaos, but most importantly it would act as a very clear and demonstrable deterrent for the people traffickers and those seeking to arrive by illegal and regular means across the channel and I do think that Government has a good opportunity as my Noble Friend says to grasp it with both hands.

Can I just mention another issue which is that UK European African transfer scheme which was sealed by the treaty between the United Kingdom and France in May. It is very interesting that the Home Secretary wrote to committee, the European Affairs Committee on 7 August to indicate that section 20 of the constitutional reform and governance act 2010 was being this applied and the Government had invoked section 22 one to prevent proper scrutiny and oversight of the treaty as per the legislation, i.e.

21 days proper scrutiny. Now, that very well be an operational issue which was necessary at the time, but it goes to the heart of the inability of The Other Place and here, that one in one out treaty and I very much value the Minister's comments where we have had a chance to properly look at that treaty, the effects of that treaty and our partners in France. And with that specific point in mind I do think that we have an opportunity to properly consider the amendment.

The Government is in a pickle on this. It is flailing around for some gimmicks in order to convince the public that they have convince the public that they have got a grip on the small boat crossings which they do not have. This is a very real opportunity for them to seize the opportunity and to seize a way of reducing the pull factor of small boat crossings, and on that basis I very strongly supported and I hope the Minister at least with that response in kind to what is an attempt to ameliorate the national emergency.
17:08
Lord Hope of Craighead Portrait Lord Hope of Craighead (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendments 104 and 203. And don't Noble Lord Jackson joined in inverting the Noble Lord the Minster to consider very carefully the language in the name of Lord Murray. And a member of the court in the decision to which the Lord Cashman referred, and provides a very good example of problem we are facing when looking at these amendments. The problem with the court is that individual cases come to us and you have to consider them one by one, whereas as legislators we can take a broader view and cover the whole round and intercept problems that none would come back to the court one by one to be dealt with.

And I think that the case, the Georgian case is a very good example of a situation where if it came before the Supreme Court now the protection which the court offered in the case of the Noble Lord would be available as well to allow that person to be extradited in light of that conduct would be contrary to human rights. So I think there is a lot of force in those two amendments on the ground that the intercept and it is best dealt with now.

Coming to the Noble Lord Marie, he referred to a case in the Supreme Court and I have no recollection of that case myself but correct me if I was wrong and I think I was not party to this and therefore it was not that charity but if the minority had the Noble Lord Roger is a member of it I would think it would carry great deal of weight and I have to confess that for quite some time I have felt that the point that the Noble Lord is making had a lot of false behind it.

I would need to look again more carefully to see what my final decision would be, but we have said enough to justify logic since position that the Government should look at it very carefully because the advantages of giving the region are very obvious. But I think, I do not think it would really damage our reputation because it would depend on the wording and interpretation of the wording not to find the convention, not withdrawing the convention, but giving effect to it.

And that, I think, is the point that the Noble Lord Marie makes an think there is a lot of false around it.
17:11
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
I have also been tempted to speak to the Noble Lord Marie is, I think I would not restrict myself to I would not restrict myself to amendments by the Noble Lord on section 59, most of the asylum seekers that come from countries and Britain they are actually coming from countries of which may be one day you may see that as a server country but those countries actually go into chaos and great difficulty. So, to define that country in our rather difficult habit that we have at the moment is almost a precarious decision to take because you never know that the country that you thought was safe suddenly you discover that there has been a clue or the Government or because a lot of theft which is not simply a question of corruption because, for me, corruption at the heart it is because it is organised theft that is going on in the country and because of the vicissitudes that actually exist into majority of people that come to this country illegally please let us not assure ourselves that the countries that we think are safe now are going to be safe in the next two months.

Things change pretty quickly. If you're going to be repealing the illegal Immigration Act 23 and section 28 then it is best to take into 59 and not 58 because of the difficulty we find ourselves in defining what you thought was a safe country and to put it in legislation I think it is very unwise question. Four May, I think the Noble Lord brown has been wise in inviting us that actually we should go to section 59 because we will be covering this uncertainty that really still exists and also the noble and Leonard Lord Hope has also supported amendment 104 with good reason.

I do not want to repeat the arguments that were carefully drafted by the Noble Lord brown, simply to say that I come everyone, find myself in a position to say knowing that I come from Uganda which today you may think is stable and it finds itself in great difficulty tomorrow, so is the next steps let us not assume a country where we want to send the people are safe because you do not know how quickly that temperature may change and you find yourself that you have legislated for something that really you should not do.

Let's be legislators.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lord the Minister frequently when responding to questions about immigration in
17:14
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
questions about immigration in general frequently repeated this phrase in central obligations and I fully understand that. But following their raising of the issue of that 1951 Convention, I asked the Government in their written questions in August of last yeah, were they talking to our allies and friends with regards to reviewing the convention? Given the changing circumstances of the world since the day that it was drafted. And I got a one-liner to say no. I repeated the question on 15 June.

And I exceeded the one line. But I was told that it had been looked at as long ago as 2018 in the United Nations, but no action had been taken, so, effectively, no discussions were taking place with our allies with Given the fact that we have been dealing with the small boat problem from 2018 and we are in excess of 180,000 people... The whole thing, government and Parliament, over a prolonged period of time, has presided over a reckless endangerment of our stability as a nation.

We cannot be for everything pattern on the surface of the arse, that is where we are. There are 48 million people in Sudan, 99% of Sudanese people who cross in boats who receive asylum. Every single citizen of Sudan could turn up here and get asylum. That is what that means. We are not joining up the dots between the numbers... And it is largely a number issue. Between the numbers and the pressure on public services on housing, health public services on housing, health and education.

Between 2021 and... Between 2001 and 2021, we added 7 million people to our population. We are not helping people, because actually, I never thought I would see or hear today... We have seen people in the papers saying they did not feel safe in this country. And then we asked the ending armed police to the -- and then we are sending armed police to the airport to pick up a writer. We have lost the plot. The issues of Georgia and so on, there is no question of doubt that we can point out to all of these countries and point the finger and say, you have a problem there.

And they have a problem. There is no question of doubt, the standards that you and I would apply in this country to people who come from minority situations are different to those that apply from others. We think India as a fast country, part of it might be safer. But not for others, the same applies to former Soviet republics, the Middle East, virtually across the board. There are very few countries left in the world today who would perhaps reach the level of safety that those of us in this chamber might feel Forward.

People, even today, are saying the United States is totally safe. Could we not make cases today to point out the full -- the floors that they would face. I understand the dilemma on this, and I understand the point that has been made by Lord Brian, but we do have to face some facts. We are not capable, as a country, to maintain a reasonable standard of living and continue the way that we are running this place, it is just not working for us and it is not working for the people.

We are putting stress on ourselves, stress on the public services, and, at the same time, huge amounts of money. Lord Jackson made the point about money, that is not the half of it! Hotels, the last time the Minister gave me an answer, worth £6.7 million per day, I asked what was the cost of non-hotel accommodation and he told me it was costing too much to answer the question. I did not get an answer. But I will get it, I can assure him.

The point is, when we add in all the other costs, the cost that we pay organisations to try and look after the interests of these people, the fact that our Border Force has been diverted from its primary role, the fact that we have vast numbers of civil servants trying to manage this huge system, which is creaking under the pressure. The costs are colossal and that is only the tip of the iceberg, there may be £6.7 billion per day for hotels, I believe, personally, the real cost is probably £20 million per day.

But we will see. No doubt. Further questioning will get an answer in due course. I would have thought it made sense to talk to our allies, not only about the Refugee Convention of 1951 but we need to talk to them about how the European convention. It was largely developed by this country, something many members are proud of. But, just as Whitehall, goldplated responses to the EU, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a tendency in our courts to push the envelope out well beyond what the intention of Parliament and those who broke the treaties intended.

This happens, things change, which is precisely why we should be talking to our allies. Because many of them are facing the same problems, we cannot sit and accept the situation from 80 years ago and assumed that is applicable to today. As the Archbishop said, things can change. And they are changing. Our world is dominated by authoritarian leaders and corruption and all of the other forces. And, therefore, we are living in... We cannot simply stick ourselves on the ground after the Second World War, which is what we are doing.

We have to move, we have to look, but we do not want to destroy the fundamental benefits of these treaties. But we have to make sure that they have credibility with the public and I can assure you, my Lords, if you go out onto the streets, although we have got to support the 1951 Convention and we have got to support this, it means nothing to the lives of ordinary people. That is the mistake that Parliament and government have been making for the last 20 years.

making for the last 20 years.
17:23
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I write to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Lord Murray. Which has been so ably supported by noble Lords. I have been glad of the response of the noble Lord in the chamber, very constructive suggestions. I think, across the House, there is a recognition that we have a problem, I know that in the House of Commons it is recognised across the benches. I have heard it discussed on these benches with great sense of constructive approach to try and deal with things as they are.

I think that is the approach of Lord Murray. Because we are looking at the figures, as others have it, they are really very high. And costs which are very high. We know that 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025. That is 14% more than in the year ending June 2024. And eight% more than in the previous peak of 103,000 than in the previous peak of 103,000 in 2002. Of asylum claims, 55,700 come from people arriving on small boats.

Or through other illegal routes. The East, 43,000 on small boat crossings and 12,000 through such routes as the back of a lorry, shipping containers or without relevant documentation. Now, around 41,000 asylum seekers who have come to the UK separately on a visa or other, they include 41,000, the full figures, who have come, on an authorised route. Who seek asylum. We are dealing with two very broad categories. People who are coming through these irregular roots and people who are coming through legal route.

All of whom claim asylum, or did so with these numbers in 2025. The people who come by small boats, or in other ways, in lorries or shipping containers, normally come directly from France. For which they travel these dangerous crossings across the seas, where, after arrival, for the year ending June, we see the figures for those claiming asylum. Now, why did they come to the UK? There are many reasons, noble Lord has spoken about the many reasons why they come here.

Because one of the legal answers that UK immigration law, they would have been deemed to have committed an offence for not having the necessary organisation -- authorisation to enter, as stipulated under the Immigration Act. They would therefore have been deemed to have committed an offence. But the arrangement of the immigration 19 nine, as discussed by immigration 19 nine, as discussed by my noble friend, is based on section 31 of the Refugee Convention. And that convention suggests that where lack afraid -- life or freedom is threatened and they present themselves to the authorities, or if the person did stop in a safe country before coming to the UK,, and this is section 2, he must show he could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention.

We know that just under half of claims, 48%, which received an initial decision in the year ending June 25 were granted. Although a smaller proportion, by comparison, with the year June 2024, when it was 58%, or below the peak of 77% in 2022, that figure is still around half of all people claiming asylum. In France, this might be one of the reason why they travel along, whether it is a good Leader, -- a good reason, it will be for the courts to decide come in France the figure is 27%.

Of course, these figures will change when they have appeals or refuse. Reviews. Lord Murray has spoken about the legal context and initial meaning of the Refugee Convention and the relevant article 31. I would like to say a word about the historic convention, it was, in the post-war, Second World War era, this is another time, another world, we were dealing with different problems. The post-war settlement of Europe, when many of the bodies had been withdrawn and people had suffered terribly under various...

Under the occupation by Germany. And, indeed, the Soviet Union, many died. So, we are dealing with questions in the Refugee Convention arising from a war in which Britain played a leading part to the forefront to defend her own sovereignty and, as Churchill said, all parties agreed to restore the liberty of European countries subjugated by the 1945 by Germany. We can understand the historical context and I accept fully the context that Lord Murray has outlined.

Because of the changed interpretation, the law as we have it is applied to facilitate global migration in an era of mass travel, much of it with economic aims. Noble Lords on other benches have drawn attention to the legacy which we are dealing with and how we tackle it. I hope... I sincerely hope that the government will accept this amendment in the spirit of which it is offered, in line with government policy, not to abandon international conventions, it restores a meaning and it is, to my mind, a lifeline towards saving the constitutional democracy of this country which we see night after night on our screens under threat because people in this country, who are law-abiding and who want...

Have welcomed refugees, over centuries, far more than other countries, have really cannot bear the brunt of it anymore. I've the the brunt of it anymore. I've the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment inspires me to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment inspires me to join. The Lord Murray's reading of the refugee Convention was one with which the House is familiar first of which the House is familiar first of we heard it down the years. It is not one which the world, as yet, it not one which the world, as yet, it is not one which the world yet is not one which the world yet accepts. It is not accepted by the UNHCR and this would be rather Trumpian to propose the change, the interpretation by unilateral interpretation by unilateral legislation.

If we wish to see a change, there are procedures set out change, there are procedures set out in the convention for proposing that change, that is standard practice and it would be a little odd for us and it would be a little odd for us to establish that the Marie interpretation as set out in the 2021 article proving the error of 2021 article proving the error of their ways of so many Governments around the world without ourselves trying to sell the Marie argument.

I do not myself believe in it for the following reasons. Let's think about Afghanistan. If you are an Afghan and the Taliban are after you and there is a price on your head and you manage to get over Khyber and you get to be Sharma and you then get on a plane and come here or get here by any means, under the Marie amendment to all three we would be required to send you back immediately to Afghanistan because you have on Lord Murray's reading of the convention you have come indirectly, you have touched ground in Pakistan, therefore you cannot have asylum in the United Kingdom.

That is, that would, if that became the general interpretation the whole purpose of the convention would be completely eroded. The purpose of the convention was to ensure that neighbouring states do not have to neighbouring states do not have to carry all the burden. Most refugees want to stay in neighbouring states because they hope to go home. But convention was not intended to say that all refugees must stay in neighbouring states. There was an element of burden sharing and there still is, so it seems to me that if we were to put this amendment into the bill and require the Government to follow what I heard that the noble and learned Lord have what may be of value plausible interpretation of the convention I do not know, I am not a lawyer, if we to put it in we would be seen by all our convention partners as acting in breach of the convention because they do not agree.

The right course would be to seek a conference at which we propose that the convention should in future be read in a different way from the ways we have read in the past. I have to oppose read in the past. I have to oppose this amendment very strongly stop
17:35
17:36
17:37
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
not understand it, I do not understand it at all, mind you I am an ordinary person. I think that the discussion so far has been very helpful at raising some very key issues that the country is preoccupied with. And I think that the sensible way to approach this which I think we have started to do is to say that there should be a proper and open debate on it which is why, in fact, we need to have a proper discussion about whether the 1951 refugee Convention is appropriate for 2025 and very different circumstances.

And, actually, some of the amendments have allowed us to reflect on that. I would like to say that the noble Lords speech, all I can say is that every word, I mean really on the money, absolutely, here here. Because I think that what we sometimes can do is have discussions in this chamber that bear little relationship to the political context and the social and cultural context of what everybody else in the country is talking about. And I have to say that there have been times during this debate in which the discussion about what constitutes safety and fleeing unsafe countries gives us a hint as to how we got into what can only be described as a very serious political crisis in this country.

Because the definition of what constitutes unsafe, the definition of what constitutes asylum, the definition of what constitutes refugees has become so expansive that it is a miracle or a mystery to me that anyone has been deported. And if anyone was listening you would just think we cannot do anything. Just to give you an example of some of the things that were argued, I was involved in a debate on the radio about whether or not Albania was a safe country some months ago.

And the example given was one that has been cited here today about the levels of domestic violence in Albania. I was pointing out that most of the people that I had seen in the small boats were Albanian that did not look like they were the victims of domestic by but they may well as of the historic split sex was in terms of domestic split sex was in terms of domestic by have been the domestic abusers in the small boats. I was only pointing this out because I just think every time you say well surely there is no reason why they should be in this country, they are from a safe country, people will say no they are not.

And then you basically get left in the situation where you cannot believe them. At one point, yes, sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady moves on, that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Noble Lady moves on, that is exactly the point that many of us are making that you cannot

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are making that you cannot generalise. I think I can just put up that point. Indeed, I was going onto quote that noble Baroness which said that that noble Baroness which said that that noble Baroness which said that a country may be safe generally, but not for a particular section of the population. I think that you were more or less saying that about not more or less saying that about not generalising but I think it is to say this is a safe country or not, say this is a safe country or not, the problem I have got is to say these countries are not safe or to these countries are not safe or to say every country can be safe but not to some groups of people and we end up therefore saying that the whole world is likely with some sections to be unsafe and come to sections to be unsafe and come to the UK and my argument is that we cannot be in a situation where we cannot be in a situation where we open up to everybody who is in an unsafe situation from around the world.

By the way, that would be world. By the way, that would be true of this country. The United Kingdom when it comes to, for example, the threat of violence against women and girls, you could say that the UK is a very safe country but let me tell you that it is not a safe country, it has not been a safe country in hundreds of towns in this country for thousands and thousands of young women, girls and children, who were sexually abused and raped in their thousands in an industrial fashion and that was in the safe country in the United Kingdom, so I am not repented generalise, but I am also saying that we cannot simply say that the lived experience of those individuals who have suffered at the hands of others in other countries should be automatically assumed that they could move to the United Kingdom.

I suppose that just gets me to the final thing that I wanted to say to ask for some guidance from the Noble Lord the Minister in terms of the status of this bill. And I did read through a lot of the sections of notes of things that I was going to say in preparation for today and the forthcoming days of committee. And I did think all my goodness, this bill is completely out of date. I do not mean it is out of date as far as I am concerned but it is out of date as far as the Government is concerned because a number of amendments I put my name to a think I am now looking like a sort of lily live at liberal type in comparison with some of the front bench comments made by Labour Government Ministers.

I thought I was being rather tentative there on the European Court of European rights. But no, it is all.. And the Home Secretary is covering herself in union jacks and flags and so on as she has told us. I thought oh, I do not know where to go now, but in all seriousness the Government, perfectly reasonably, has said that commentary time is short, in general. I think that it is under a lot of scrutiny, we all know. There is a lot of amendments to the bill but I was going to ask whether it would be possible for the Government frontbench to maybe assess all of the amendments that are in across the House in different directions the House in different directions and basically tick all of those that might actually the Government might actually not agree with so that we do not waste parliamentary time discussing things which actually there is a sort of general unanimity, even if not amongst the Backbench of the Government, but certainly the frontbench.

And as we continue, however, because we will be discussing the bill, I do think we should just bear in mind that constantly the reason why there is concern for international conventions, is that this point the whole point of us being here has to pass legislation which it considers to be in the best interest of people that live in this country and of this country and the national interest being important and if then the will of the people as expressed in Parliament cannot happen because of international conventions, human of international conventions, human rights international laws as interpreted by a plethora of lawyers, then it means that democracy is threatened and I therefore do agree with the Noble Lord when he says we should look at some of this again and I do hope that the Government will therefore look at it again and we do not have to waste time on some amendments which actually the covetable, broadly speaking, agree with.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness, this does feel a noble Baroness, this does feel a little like a second reading debate today, but there are two good reasons for that. One is quite a bit reasons for that. One is quite a bit of time has passed since we last met in this chamber to discuss the in this chamber to discuss the subject. And, secondly, an awful lot has happened. And I was fascinated has happened. And I was fascinated to see, for example, the kite being third of our digital ID cards which third of our digital ID cards which is an incredibly important subject and has a huge bearing on the and has a huge bearing on the question of illegal immigration which will affect people once they which will affect people once they which will affect people once they I think it is fair that we have a wide-ranging debate.

I think, when wide-ranging debate. I think, when we started looking at this Bill, very much the commentary around the very much the commentary around the bill is that it is thick, at least a day and 1/2 we spent talking about day and 1/2 we spent talking about the border control, a renamed civil servant with the powers they had servant with the powers they had previously. And the Bill was not a substantive one. Since that time, we have heard the government floating various initiatives around digital ID cards, Iran OCHA, around the reform of family access if I can describe it as that, that is a moving target.

It doesn't feel as if there is an argument to pause with this Bill whilst some of these initiatives are worked through. At that point, we need to be frank about the nature of the situation. About the nature of the factors that are driving people to choose the UK as their destination of choice. The noble Lord the Minister and I had a number of interactions to try and get to the bottom of why the government believes that the UK is so popular amongst those who are going through a number of other
17:49
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
countries. And I am not satisfied, I am not convinced that I have had am not convinced that I have had really a full answer to that really a full answer to that question. I think some of it lies around the low chance of being around the low chance of being deported from this country. My noble friend, Lord Murray, in his friend, Lord Murray, in his amendments, at least has come forward with a substantive forward with a substantive suggestion, whether that works, legally or not, I am not the person legally or not, I am not the person to say.

When I saw the noble Lord to say. When I saw the noble Lord anxious to rise to his feet, I thought a massive torpedo was going thought a massive torpedo was going to be launched. There were a number of us who scratched our heads and of us who scratched our heads and said, have we heard correctly? I am delighted that we have, I think we delighted that we have, I think we are all on the same side here. Very are all on the same side here.

Very rarely on exactly the same side. I will accept her correction. I think the overall description of the situation, we cannot just do nothing or scratch around at the edges. We need to look at different situations and different solutions, that is why I look forward to the Minister's response to my noble friend's amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am conscious it has been a long group already, but I was not intending on speaking in this debate. The first raising of my head debate. The first raising of my head of this Bill... I was listening to of this Bill... I was listening to what other members said, I was answering on behalf of the Home Office from the despatch box at the tail end of last government, I am sorry to say, I was involved in the sorry to say, I was involved in the drafting within Number 10 of the drafting within Number 10 of the Rwanda deal with the previous Minister.

It was good then, it is Minister. It was good then, it is good now. Anyway... What I would just like to say...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just like to say... The noble Lord said it was good, there was a provision in the Rwanda there was a provision in the Rwanda bill which said that, notwithstanding the mean that Rwanda was safe, it might not be safe for was safe, it might not be safe for the individual. The Bill would not have even have worked.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have even have worked. That is a slight defect of the Bill, I think that ship has sailed now. The point that I will come back to, Rwanda did have a deterrent, that is what we are lacking, it might have only been in small numbers, it might not have been the numbers we wanted to come but it was a deterrent and, in my view, it was one part of a series of steps we should have been taking. The reason
17:52
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-
that I speak to back my noble friend and those amendments, certainly not because I've been told to, as Lord because I've been told to, as Lord Jackson said, this is not about pulling out of the ECHR, or the pulling out of the ECHR, or the Refugee Convention, and this is not about think we do not want to accept about think we do not want to accept any refugees. It is about tackling the Illegal Migration Act and crossings we have had. We have heard one inspector raise its head today one inspector raise its head today in the form of the elected President of the United States.

Another we of the United States. Another we have not heard, I'm sure we will at some stage, the other spectre on the horizon, the spectre of reform and horizon, the spectre of reform and throughout. I will like to echo what throughout. I will like to echo what Baroness Fox said. There is a genuine... I'm not saying the ministers don't, but outside this hall, there is a deep growing sense of unease and anger, it is building and the frustration is building.

I know it is not unique to this government, it has been going for some time, but it has grown exponentially lately. I think it is because there is the sense of injustice, lack of control. It is crucially because we need, the government have said, we need that deterrent, we need to tackle the crossings. We have to group this, we have to tackle the numbers, we have to tackle the pull factor, at the moment, there is nothing in there.

There is not any deterrent as it currently stands, that is why I support my noble friend and the two amendments from my own Frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been, I think, a game of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been, I think, a game of two halves. One half which is very much, I think, strikes what I would call a second reading speech and speeches and issues and the other speeches and issues and the other half which is very specific about the structure and the place in this the structure and the place in this Bill on the safety issues. I will deal, first of all, with the
17:53
17:54
17:54
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
friends, Baroness Hamwee, supported by Baroness Brinton, on the section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. My first question to the government is, first question to the government is, why are you retaining this section why are you retaining this section of the Illegal Migration Act? Which has not been enacted, I understand. And I understand the rationale is not recall operational benefit. That could mean you have petrol in the car or it can mean you have some car or it can mean you have some vehicle you want to move forward.

I think an explanation of what that think an explanation of what that operational benefit is would be helpful because the retention of this section, effectively, removed this section, effectively, removed the Secretary of state's discussion and renders them inadmissible. Like we have been talking about, generally, I can't recall the 2023 particularly, for avoiding the risk of refoulement, which we have talked about significantly over the years. It seems to me that it is down to the government to tell us why they want to retain this section.

Because we talked about the threshold which was for admissibility being negligible. There was only a limited, as I understand it, judicial review route but no right of appeal. It is a very thin route you can get somebody wishes to try and appeal. I know that a judicial review is very simple... Not a very simple process, it requires assistance. There are major concerns, which my colleagues have raised, particularly about Georgia, and colleagues are in this chamber and will know, we have spoken to the leaders of political parties many of them, we spoke to them, one of them I spoke to went back the last day and was imprisoned.

Just think about this policy... By the way, Georgia is in the government this, not the Conservative list, even they agree George is not safe. Just imagine, we were commended by the Lord Speaker to attend at a time and signup for a particular support motion for the government. That would be not a recommendation but an imprisonable offence, that is what is happening. Political freedoms, which we all think are essential, are being delegated in Georgia at the moment.

All that has been said, in the context, and we have heard again about the changes in countries, frequently they can ( $$JOINTHE. You can not afford to say, this place is safe, and then if years later change your mind about them after so many people have suffered because of the actions contained within it. I repeat the report from the United Nations, you have to make an individual assessment and make sure you are negating the risk of refoulement.

I would like to turn briefly, if I may, to the second half, just to say two things. I thought Lord Empey was right, if you are a member of a convention and you want to change it in a big way, not just there is room, in the way that conventions are placed, for movement and adjustment and interpretation issues, if you want to do it severely, and I would maintain the amendment that Lord Murray is designating is not severe, the only people who could be admitted to this country, for example, would be people who took a site directly from Cedar to London Heathrow.

There are not any flights, I know that there are noble Lords who say that and know about that, the experience I would say is this, it is right for conventions to be examined all the time, it is right for them to try and move on. And I noted many mistakes, by the way, in which people are interpreting the ECHR as being a body of Europe, it is actually a body of the Council of Europe. I would like the Minister to answer this question.

I spoke to the Secretary general of the Council of Europe, who is responsible for the Council of ministers, including this country. He said, discussion and the ECHR is underway amongst the countries of the Council of Europe. Those who say, by the way, I must get this point in, those who say we should leave the ECHR, we will be leaving the Council of Europe as well. We, as a country, 151 conventions which we have signed up to about the freedoms we all take for granted.

We have got to be clear about this, take Lord Empey's approach, if you think something and it is only underway in this area, and how far it has progressed but it has started, and I know that that discussion will progress. In terms of this Parliament, I do not think there are any other members in the chamber who are members of the IEC committee. Lord Jackson estimate the agreement, where a decision was taken not to have the scrutiny under a private arrangement, it is the IEC committee which doesn't on behalf Parliament, not just the House of Lords, but the House of Commons.

We discussed this matter yesterday, it is clearly important and the noble Baroness is there, she will tell you, there was an exchange of letters between the government and the committee, and we have an agreement from the Secretary of State for Home affairs that there will be an evidence session, they will provide detail on the agreement, the committee will report to Parliament and report and there can be a debate in this House on that matter. In some senses, it is a bit of an advantage to have a treaty in action in this case, we can report on what is happening rather The second best, but it was certainly possible for us for it to happen.

In conclusion, I think that I return to my first question which is why does the Government want to retain this section of the Illegal Migration Act? And, if it does, what is the operational benefit?
18:01
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
This has been a very wide-ranging debate. And has departed in many ways from that list in the group that we are debating, but it has been very worthwhile and a fascinating debate. And as my Noble Friend Lord Gascoigne said, I think that the context for the debate has to be what he termed a growing sense of injustice on the part of many people in this country about the direction of our immigration system and I think that should be borne in mind by us all as we debate not just this group with this bill in general.

Returning then to the amendment in the name of the Noble Lord brown and the amendment which attempts to remove section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act from the statute book, I would suggest that the principle of that section is a straightforward one. And it is one that is hard to disagree with. And that principle is as follows, if an individual is a national of a country where there is no general risk of persecution, human rights are respected and where there is access to justice and democratic accountability, is it not right that the claim be considered inadmissible unless there are exceptional grounds? And is it not right that instead we focus on finite resources and time on those regimes were oppression, conflict, and state violence are real and present dangers? The practical benefits of section 59 significant.

The section reduces administrative and clerical delay, it streamlines case working and she was that officials can focus on the most serious and the most urgent claims and it establishes a clear statutory list of safe states with the ability to amend that list through accountable Parliamentary procedure. That list is not certain stone, it can change. It has both clarity and fix ability and by failing to adopt this section we risk achieving the opposite, we risk a system clogged with vexatious or unfounded claims by illegal gamesmanship and I say that as a lawyer.

And by delays that come at the cost not only to the taxpayer but, more importantly, to those who truly do need our help, namely the victims of torture, persecution, war and trafficking. That we have a moral duty to protect. I would suggest to your Lordships house section 59 helps to ensure that duty is fulfilled, not diluted, and it prioritises principle it preserves the fairness of the system and promotes justice, and for those reasons, despite the long-standing respect that I have for the Noble Lord, I am unable to support his amendment.

Can I turn then to amendment 192? Tabled in by my Noble Friend Lord Davies. This amendment does not target gender refugees or close the door to those in real and urgent need who use safe and legal routes to come to the UK but what it does is ensure that the law applies equally to all that enter this country legally or who make claims from other countries are not placed at a disadvantage compared to those who enter clandestinely. We cannot have a duty illegal system, one for citizens, illegal migrants, and another for those that deliberately reach our laws and then ask for protection.

And we need to remember that this is not just damaging for us in our legal system but it is damaging and dangerous for the migrants themselves. It adds power to the criminal gangs and encourages risky dangerous unlawful crossings. And it ensures that the vulnerable people who are drawn into a system that is harder, not easier, to navigate. And that ties in with amendment 203J tabled by my Noble Friend Lord Murray lit with spoken to him with his customary lucidity and compelling arguments.

I do note that it was supported by the Noble Lord hope at least tentatively and he also claimed that Noble Lord Roger of old Sperry that he mentioned two of Scotland's most eminent juries in the last 25 years and I think both the Noble Lord Marie and Lord Jackson of Peterborough and many others have made excellent points about that amendment which is very sensible underlining premise, those should claim asylum when they get to a safe country.

Travelling through multiple safe countries are then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum in the UK is of use to that system, and I therefore support that amendment. Amendment 193 in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lord for giving way. What is his answer that has been given by the Noble Lord code been given by the Noble Lord code that really we have got no business interpreting the refugee convention at a domestic level. It is a matter

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the wide world that considers the convention. I grateful to the Noble Lord. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I grateful to the Noble Lord. I think that my answer is that it is think that my answer is that it is our business and that we can devise an asylum movement in system for this country and that is entitled this country and that is entitled for us to make points that not only the Lord Marie has made but also the the Lord Marie has made but also the Frontbench for the Conservative party have made throughout this bill. This is about achieving a system that deters Illegal Migration Act and it allows those that are in Act and it allows those that are in real need to use safe or illegal risk to come to the UK.

Our amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Taking the Noble Lord Marie's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Taking the Noble Lord Marie's amendment, I entirely understand the situation that somebody has come situation that somebody has come over illegally and has no good reason to stay here, but if that person comes from an unsafe country, where would you send them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point noble Baroness for making that point and I think that Lord Marie's and I think that Lord Marie's argument is that those who are genuine asylum seekers have to claim asylum when they reach a safe country and what it is aimed at stopping is travelling through stopping is travelling through multiple safe countries and then attempting to cross the channel to claim asylum.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

An Afghan soldier who served alongside our troops with whom they alongside our troops with whom they have a duty has no safe route to get to the UK now? Are you suggesting to the UK now? Are you suggesting that the should not support the asylum application if they arrived illegally, only illegally because

**** Possible New Speaker ****

illegally, only illegally because your Government made it so? I am suggesting and supporting the premise that you have to claim a the premise that you have to claim a genuine asylum seeker should claim asylum when they get to a safe country. Our amendment 1936 to incorporate, if I can move on to incorporate, if I can move on to amendment 193, in my name, our amendment seeks to incorporate what I believe should be an entirely uncontroversial principle.

If someone arrives in this country at the sanctuary they should say so and they should say so without delay. This demand is the bare minimum of 40 functioning immigration and as system should expect and I would argue that this amendment brings clarity and discipline to that expectation and establishes a one- year window in which claims must be made and ensures that claims beyond that point without compelling reason are not entertained. And once will I want to be very clear on this point, that is a defence of genuine refugees because when our system is flooded with last-minute opportunistic and tactical claims it is those with genuine protection needs who suffer the delays growing longer and the backlogs increasing and the resources stretched dinner and we are what to those in real danger to assure that the system works for them and not those seeking to gain from it.

It is an amendment drawn from the new Canadian asylum and rules which also impose a one- year time remit for claiming asylum in the same way. Even the Home Secretary herself has acknowledged this is an acute problem, as my From the despatch boxes today, the Government has stated that they want to clampdown on students who come to the UK on a student visa, then claim asylum once they are in the UK, often at the end of their visa. This amendment would repent that from happening since if a person came to the UK, studied for three as at university, then attempted to make an asylum claim, they would not be able to do so.

I look forward to hearing with the Noble Lord the Minister says in response. Finally, amendment 203 insert name of the Noble Lady baroness and that removes Albania, Georgia, and India from the list of safe states in the list of nationality to thousand and two act, I would urge the House very carefully to consider the implications of such a move, not only for the integrity but our bilateral immigration enforcement systems and indeed for the principal of the evidence-based policy.

Let us

**** Possible New Speaker ****

begin with Albania. This amendment. I am sorry is that Noble Lord was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry is that Noble Lord was clearly about to go through this but perhaps he could add friends to that because I have been wondering about our relationship with France, if we our relationship with France, if we were to pursue the route of were to pursue the route of existing, the last or any safe country through which an asylum country through which an asylum seeker travels should be aware that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

he pursues asylum. I will continue to go through the list as would begin with Albania, this amendment proposes to/from the list we need to remember a nation list we need to remember a nation with which they netted kingdom is a formal agreement, an agreement formal agreement, an agreement signed in 2022 and the organised signed in 2022 and the organised criminal, it allows for the Swift return of Albanians who have no right to remain in the UK, and she right to remain in the UK, and she was a genuine protection of claims to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to Home Office statistics, a massive proportion of statistics, a massive proportion of Albanian asylum claims by adult males are refused because Albania is, by any objective measure, a safe and functioning democracy, so much so that the Prime Minister himself visited Albania in May to hold talks about returning male asylum seekers.

Georgia is a member of the Council of Europe, has EU candidate status and cooperates with a range of international human rights mechanisms.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to say that Georgia has been suspended for reasons we have just talked about about the way that they treat people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that they treat people. I would still suggest that it cooperates with a range of human cooperates with a range of human cooperates with a range of human rights mechanisms. And India also is the world's largest democracy, a the world's largest democracy, a Commonwealth partner. And a strategic ally of the United Kingdom. It has robust constitution of protections for minorities and independent judiciary and the regular multiparty elections. To suggest that these countries are unsafe as a matter of UK immigration law and risks not only diplomatic tensions but is also factually unsound.

Are there other challenges in all societies? Yes, of course. in all societies? Yes, of course. That is a point made very forcefully by the Noble Lord in his contribution. But that is not the test. Because the test under section test. Because the test under section 80 aa is whether in general the 80 aa is whether in general the country poses a serious risk. The statutory test is a general one. statutory test is a general one. When the Secretary of State asks herself the question, she has to generalise and a lot of noble Lords have made points about the need to take into account specific individual assessments.

The question she has to ask herself as a genuine one. Does that country, in general, pose a serious risk of persecution to its nationals, firstly, and whether removal to those countries would contravene our human rights obligations. I would suggest, quite firmly, that neither testes remotely impaired in the case of Georgia, Albania, or endeavours of genuine refugees deserve our protection and they must come first. We do a disservice to them if we open the gates to unfounded claims of national of safe democratic states, and that is why we cannot support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that amendment. I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been a very wide discussion. Wider than I possibly anticipated. But I sense at the end of the debate I probably will not satisfy many noble lords on the satisfy many noble lords on the chamber today but such is the nature of Government responsibilities. Could I state at the outset that I was not intending again to say this was not intending again to say this but I think that given the comments from the noble Viscount Lord Baroness Fox and the Noble Lord and Baroness Fox and the Noble Lord and others that it is worthwhile and others that it is worthwhile and indeed the Noble Lord MP it is worthwhile just setting out that the Government does take this issue extremely seriously.

The Government extremely seriously. The Government in its manifesto would also in the actions not just in this bill also
18:16
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
actions not just in this bill also in the immigration white paper that we published and also the unilateral actions that we have taken independently now requiring legislation. I tried to take the issue of the illegal entry, defining our asylum system and tackling a proper effective immigration system This government has spent time talking to allies in France, as agreed by the treaty which is looking at an exchange, to be looked at in detail, we are working with the Calais group, to try and work on international action to stop smuggling, we are working downstream with the German parliament and German government to look at tackling issues to do with boat manufacturer and transfers.

We have signed agreements with Iraq, it powers to establish the border command and make sure that criminal activity, as discussed in sessions today, we have a commitment to reduce hotel use and we have, over the past 12 months, set £1 billion worth of expenditure by reducing the number of hotels used and maximising the use of those hotels. We have put energy into a crackdown to try and stop some of the factors that are there when people think they can come to the country, disappear into the system and work illegally, 20 crackdown on that.

We have increased the number of arrests and secretions. We have sped up the claim system, at the heart of this is determining people's asylum claims, determining who has a right to stay and then removing those who do not. We have increased those asylum claim speeding up processes and increased removals white 9,000 people being -- by over 9,000 people removed. And this is not because... Enough members have said the Bill seems to be frozen in time and things have moved on, I can assure the noble Baroness we will have a debate and we can discuss that in due course in a friendly way.

But there are issues we are looking at and the measures that my noble friend, the Home Secretary, has brought forward this week, are based on the assessment that the Home Secretary has made on the situation which is continually ongoing. If we find a family reunion to give the example of this week, is increasing by over 100% in the past two years, and is a big issue in terms of people coming to the country through that route, it is right to suspend, as we will do shortly, that route, to review it.

That is what governments do, we look at problems and challenges and review it but we have set out in this Bill a number of measures to establish a fairer, stronger system in the immigration white paper we have done the same and actions we have taken accordingly elsewhere, similarly, to have a purpose. Again, I don't want to see the type of concerns, distrust, disorder that there is around hotel use and people who are here whilst asylum claims are assessed, I do not see that at all.

I want to understand that there are concerns and, again, I'm not making this party political, those concerns have risen and driven over the past nine years, in relation to that small boat crossings. I had my temporary font Parliament in both houses and made cases and arguments for the Rwanda scheme, which has some flaws, which we have taken the decision to repeal in full. I think we have a shared understanding from all sides that this is an issue that needs to be challenged and tackled and that is why we are setting out the measures today.

A number of amendments before us, I will try to talk to those amendments as a whole, I will start with the opposition frontbench, because they are the opposition and they are the frontbench, I think it is fair to start with that. I will return to Lord Brown in due course. The two amendments, 190 and 193, seek to widen the current inadmissibility provisions. Currently, individuals can be removed to a safe, third country if they are inadmissible. That includes a legal entrance as well as other claimants whose claims are liable to inadmissibility.

Inadmissibility processes are intended to support the safety of asylum seekers, the integrity of the border and fairness to the asylum system by encouraging asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and deter them from making unnecessary and dangerous onward journeys. For a claim to be declared inadmissible, the individual has to have been present previously in or have a connection to a safe third country where they could be reasonably expected to have claimed asylum. Amendment 190, anybody who arrives illegally must have the asylum clean -- claim declared inadmissible.

That amendment would mean that all asylum seekers to enter the UK illegally would have claim declared inadmissible with no regard for whether there is a safe, third country for them to return to. Such an approach would, in my view, mean that a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible, which means we cannot establish whether they qualify for refugee status. In that scenario, those individuals will be in a holding position, unable to be removed and, including those with genuine claims, who would have their claims assessed now under the system and there are 60% of people who make a claim where the claim is currently approved.

That is a difficult challenge, it is with integrity that he has moved it but it is difficult and it would not have the objective that he would seek, simile, amendment one monthly -- 193, individuals will have asylum claims declared inadmissible when they failed to register an asylum claim within 12 months. Again, there is a motive behind that which has an integrity, but when I cannot share, those people who launch asylum claims will... In an opportunistic manner come sometimes to extend the time they can remain in the UK, this amendment would not deal with that particular issue, it was simply extend indefinitely the time in which those individuals would be able to remain in the UK because, without an ability to examine the claims, we cannot determine whether they qualify for refugee status.

The amendment fails to take account of surplus refugees, which would mean anybody lawfully in the UK from a country in which the circumstances have changed, and we have had much discussion around that today, in a significant way, for example, where they could have been armed conflict in the tournament since they had been here, would be unable to avail themselves of the protection of the UK. Now, in contrast to that, we have my noble friend Lord Brown and I appreciate the other noble Lords who have spoken in support of amendment 104.

That would repeal section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, section 59 amends section 18 A of the Asylum act 2002, which provides that asylum claims from EU nationals must be declared inadmissible to the U.K.'s asylum system, other than where exceptional circumstances apply. Inadmissibility procedures in this section allow estate to declare a claim inadmissible when the claim is made by nationals of countries which are declared generally safe. It is an important process and a long- standing process which can prevent asylum claims from nationals of countries where are safe from absorbing the limited resources we have.

Now, I understand the motivation behind that but I would remind the House, section 59 is not fully commenced, indeed, the only part of section 59 have been commenced as the power to add or remove countries from that list of the said countries. However, the government believes it is important, and the right approach, to retain the capability, this goes to the question posed by Lord German, of that flexibility to extend the use inadmissibility in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals from countries we would generally considered to be safe.

I think that addresses the point my noble friend has made. Now, amendment 203J has had support from a number of noble members, including Baroness Lawlor, Lord Jackson, and Lord Murray himself, who has proposed this system. We have had some discussion system. We have had some discussion around the ECHR, article 8, the French treaty, let me say again, for clarity, the government believe in the ECHR and are committed to our international obligations for a whole range of reasons, that I have outlined on a number of occasions, but that does not mean we cannot look at things and the article 8 provisions that we have said we will look at, this goes to other points made by other noble members, they are issues we will return to in the coming months, which we want to consult on, I have told colleagues in the judiciary, to ensure that we have an understanding of the interpretation of article 8 and whether it needs to be tightened in order to ensure the country is not taken for a ride by individuals who use that premise, under circumstances where they effectively are using it as a last resort in a way in which we all really do think is, if I use the word we have discussed a lot today, inadmissible.

I do not think that is appropriate but I will say, that article 8 review is ongoing and before I take the intervention, the French treaty we have established is in a pilot form, we will review it this month, we hope to extend it further, I will report back to the House on the numbers involved and there are other tools we are working on to ensure that we can put energy into tackling this important problem.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lord for taking this intervention and for taking this intervention and explaining, in general terms, the government is thinking about and I government is thinking about and I understand why, at the moment, he can't be more specific. But may I ask this, he said the consideration ask this, he said the consideration to article 8, should it not also embrace article 3, which is often used in circumstances where many used in circumstances where many people, at least, would raise a question as to how appropriate it is?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is? I am happy to examine that, we have said, publicly, article 8 is have said, publicly, article 8 is the purpose for our examination discussion and our wider review, but discussion and our wider review, but that's not mean, again, this is the key point, it is not mean we are going to be ditching the ECHR, going to be ditching the ECHR, which, although it is 85... 75 to 80 which, although it is 85... 75 to 80 years old, it was established in years old, it was established in 1950, it establishes, as a number of members have mentioned, a number of basic rights.

Those rights are basic rights. Those rights are important to me, the people we represent, the people in our communities, they set a basic framework but it does not mean we can't look at how the interpretations are made and that is why we are trying to do that. If I come back to the amendments, to a 3J, it would impose a legal obligation to refuse all asylum claims, made by illegal or other irregular migrants, who travelled from safe countries, the stated intention of the measure is to deter such people using dangerous or illegal methods from entering the UK.

I am with Lord Kerr on this, the amendment would not achieve that aim. Refusing a person's asylum claim and proposing removal to the country of origin would indeed put the UK in breach of its obligations of the Refugee Convention and we may not want to be in the Refugee Convention, but we are, and we can't, in my view, breach those obligations. Even if a person's asylum claim could be refused on account of this measure, the humanitarian protection claim would need to be properly considered on its merits.

Furthermore,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the Minister and I appreciate the difficulty of the I appreciate the difficulty of the position from which he speaks. And the difficulty of the position of the difficulty of the position of the Home Office. The point of my amendment was not to breach international law. As I hope I made clear, the wording of the clear, the wording of the convention, article 31, is clear, one has to come directly. This is an one has to come directly.

This is an opportunity, for the government, to comply with its stated intention of comply with its stated intention of not breaching international but still deliver a policy that has a deterrent and this is a vital opportunity and I implore him not to opportunity and I implore him not to miss it just because it is coming miss it just because it is coming

**** Possible New Speaker ****

miss it just because it is coming Let me reassure the Noble Lord that there is nothing personal and I would welcome any suggestions from across the House and if we reject across the House and if we reject the amendments in due course which suspect he is right, we will, then I suspect he is right, we will, then I think because if anybody else moves think because if anybody else moves it would still be rejected he knows more than anybody else the challenges of the laws that we have in the Home Office and I am grateful for his suggestions and will try to examine them but the key point is well that may be at give the Noble Lord hope this is that the merits of the claim could also attract and appeal right and we move in the possibility for assessing the claims is clearly unfounded and we will end up with even more litigation which help lawyers reach a resolution of the challenge as a whole.

And without the specific further conditions in the legislation our decision would need to explain why we consider this measure applied to individuals in these particular circumstances, addressing anything they raised allegedly life and liberty were threatened and what we consider to be safe countries. Nothing personal to the Noble Lord but we cannot accept that recommendation of an amendment. Amendment 203E had support from Baroness Brinton and my Noble Friend as well is being proposed by the noble Baroness ham way and it seeks to provide a definition of exceptional circumstances working in these provisions and also seeks to remove Albania, Georgia, and India, from the list of generally safe countries in the future.

I hope I have already explain to the House how exceptional circumstances bear upon the ability processes, section 88 already sets out some examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances which relates to states delegating from obligations under the ECHR and actions taken by EU institutions. These are not exhaustive and may be a case that is That should not be applied. Present, the question of whether a person's evidence or other relevant matters constitute exceptional circumstances is determined according to case law. This amendment would replace the established approach.

established approach.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to ask the Noble Lord particularly for this intervention in terms of derogation from the ECHR which you have just referred to, I wonder what consideration the Government is now consideration the Government is now giving to Georgia which is in clear giving to Georgia which is in clear breach of the ECHR. And where it has taken itself out because it knows it taken itself out because it knows it is in threat and has to in every engagement.

This is clearly a country, is that something that the Government is looking at? And you know you can do by regulation I know know you can do by regulation I know we are going to talk about that but since this is the only power that you are holding onto, you have got a country here that needs to be looked at very seriously.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at very seriously. The Foreign Secretary has sanctioned a number of individual instances. Is there any correlation instances. Is there any correlation between the Foreign Office does and what the House considers?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what the House considers? We will take a whole Government approach on this issue. But what I would like to do, can I reflect with colleagues who are directly dealing colleagues who are directly dealing with this matter? And at report stage to examine these issues further. Well examine those comments that have been made and contact both the noble Baroness and the Noble Lord accordingly. Let me just also say that in this I think of him as my Noble Friend, the Noble Lord and indeed Baroness Fox, that while this list has been commenced, the provisions necessary for it to have any effect have not been so if this Government decides it is right to change this list and effective for inadmissibility decisions we will have time and based upon the information today will consider the countries that should be removed and that goes against a point that has just been made around Yorkshire we can consider those issues and reflect upon them by adding to the appropriate parliamentary procedures according to the criteria set out in section 80 zero AA of the legislation.

So, in summary on this, I think the Government has a solid approach to try to tackle this issue. Some of the measures are still in this pipeline because of the legislation but there is a strong series of measures to try to make an impact on what is a genuinely serious issue facing this country that needs resolution and which is built on over a number of years but I do not think that this series of amendments put before the House and this group would insist on that process, so I would ask, for the moment, at least, if the noble Lords, my Noble Friend is Lord Browne supported by Lord Cashman withdraw their amendment and the official opposition of the Noble Lord Marie and members from the Liberal Democrats could withdraw their amendments.

There are opportunities to reflect on what has been said with an examination tomorrow and there are opportunities at report stage later to return, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at the moment I hope that noble Lords can withdraw their amendments. Before the Noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Noble Lord sits down, I may not be his Parliamentary friend but I am not his parliamentary enemy either. It seems parliamentary enemy either. It seems he is in an emollient mood, could I he is in an emollient mood, could I implore upon him if they are taking the governmentwide approach, as he says there are, his colleague in the says there are, his colleague in the Foreign Office has told me twice that they are not looking at the that they are not looking at the refugee Convention of 1951.

Surely we have to open a discussion with we have to open a discussion with our allies in looking at how that has been operating since its inception in 1951, so perhaps he could persuade his friends and the Government to actually look at that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

convention. The Noble Lord will know that the government's keep all matters under government's keep all matters under review at all times and that is the review at all times and that is the political civil service in response to this matter, but I assure him to this matter, but I assure him that from my perspective our international obligations are international obligations are extremely important, but that does not mean that we cannot examine how we interpret those actions and does not mean we also cannot examine things such as the measures in this bill, the measures announced by my right honourable friend this week and the direct executive actions we can take in terms of hotel use and other things to ensure that we put some pressure and energy into the system to achieve, I think about what is an objective that all of the members of this House wish to have which is a resolution of people being exploited by criminal gangs to subvert immigration in the United Kingdom.

With that, I hope that noble Lords can reflect on my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

comments and do the right thing. Before the Noble Lord the Minister sits down, I may have Minister sits down, I may have misunderstood him, but did the Noble Lord the Minister said that the Government would consider from Government would consider from article 3? No, I know, I may have misunderstood, but if that is the case, I would just like to point out that is not possible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is not possible. The intervention that I took

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The intervention that I took invited me to examine that issue. I have said I will examine the issue, have said I will examine the issue, but the Government, as a whole, is looking at the response to that looking at the response to that question, the Government focuses on article 8, there is a review of article 8, there is a review of article 8. We are anticipating being able to energise and review article 8 to ensure that we examine how it 8 to ensure that we examine how it is currently interpreted, what actions are taken as a result, and whether further guidance needs to be whether further guidance needs to be issued about those matters.

In response to the intervention, I have response to the intervention, I have said that what I look at article 3? I have said I will look at the point that was made then, with the focus

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Government is article 8. We have clarified the position

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have clarified the position and I was not actually suggesting delegating from article 8 but the suggestion was that examining suggestion was that examining article 8 and examining article 3, the possibility of getting guidance to judges I believe is under to judges I believe is under consideration and it may be resolving issues and doubles the article 8 and article 3 it may be necessary for the Government to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

necessary for the Government to think again as to what guidance to give to courts. And I thought that is what I had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I thought that is what I had said, so I hope we can agree at the end of this lively group of amendments that we have had that the Government direction of travel is one that I hope the House can support with the amendment before support with the amendment before the committee today will be withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdrawn. My Lords, I offer my final

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I offer my final remarks in this debate with the traditional thanks to all those that
18:41
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page