Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Bishop of Durham

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I rise to support the removal of Clauses 22 to 24 and 27, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, many of the arguments are similar to those related to Clause 21, so we will not repeat them.

Clauses 22 to 24 carry through the logic of Clause 21 and remove protections and support from those who, crucially, have already been identified and assessed as having reasonable grounds to be considered a victim of trafficking or modern slavery. These victims are not self-identified or -assessed. They have to be referred by a first responder agency, such as the police, and assessed by the competent authority.

The insidious nature of applying these provisions retrospectively is that there are people now in safe houses who are receiving specialist support to rebuild their lives or to build a legal case against their abuser that might be used by law enforcement. To have those protections and support removed from them before a conclusive grounds decision can be reached on their case seems cruel. Someone who has potentially just escaped an abusive situation and has been assessed by a first responder and the Home Office as having a reasonable case and who is for the first time receiving support from a specialist agency could be told out of the blue that support is withdrawn and they are subject to detention and removal. To deter one group of people, we will wash our hands of a much larger group who did not arrive by boat or even necessarily of their own volition.

The long and short of these clauses is that to weed out an unknown and unproven level of abuse, and without any evidence that it will deter Channel crossings, we will be simply abandoning victims. We will be doing so in a thoroughly dramatic and cruel way by withdrawing support that has been offered. I cannot see this is justifiable, still less desirable, and I ask the Minister to consider the clauses in their entirety.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to repeat the points that I made on the first group because they apply in a very similar way to the amendments in this group, which in our case amounts to opposition to the clauses standing part of the Bill.

In the first group, I strayed into Clauses 25 and 26, which should really be here—the revolving door of a revolving sunset. A point I did not make was how much scope the Secretary of State has to keep on altering the direction of how things go with minimum scrutiny because, to me, scrutiny should include an opportunity to make changes. So much is dealt with by regulations. All the clauses on modern slavery are part of a whole, which, as a whole, we oppose. The Bill does nothing to tackle modern slavery and trafficking, does away with support for many victims and damages the UK’s reputation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who spoke earlier, I do not much like the term “world leading”, but that was what people were saying of us not so very long ago.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Bishop of Durham

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble and right reverend friend behind me here supports it as well. I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I fully support.

We may have 125,000 asylum seekers but let me focus on two. This is why I support both amendments. One is an asylum seeker who lives in my area who heard from the Home Office within the first three weeks of arrival then heard nothing for 12 months, in spite of inquiry after inquiry. That is why we need a code of practice. That is why we need better ways of working. It beggars belief what that says to him about how he is seen in our society and by our society. That is, of course, told time and again.

The second case is an Afghan who came out last summer on the planes and whose family is still in hiding in Afghanistan. Last week they were hunted by the Taliban; they escaped. He sent me through last week the letter he had just received from a Home Office official. It is four lines long, giving him the number that he has been allocated, with not one jot of sympathy about what he might be facing.

I accept that the official will not know or be able to verify the story that I have heard but the processes themselves do not treat people as people. They treat them as case numbers. We need the kinds of provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has proposed and we need to deal with these cases much faster. That means we employ more people and we upskill them. That is why I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The right to work falls away, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, noted. That is not going to happen in a hurry, so we need the right to work now but we also need the other provisions.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seemed to be addressed more to refugees than asylum seekers and I think that almost everyone who has spoken about the right to work of asylum seekers has urged faster decision- making. I want to speak to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name.

The House has heard many noble Lords stress the importance of a trauma-informed approach and the difficulties of almost every asylum seeker, I would have thought, in telling their story almost as soon as they get here after dreadful experiences. It must be dreadful, even if the journey is quite straightforward, to tell the story coherently and fully. I fear the Home Office has not yet got it.

The Minister wrote to me last week on the interpretation of “without delay” and I thank her for that. She has had an awful lot of letters to write during the course of the Bill. The official who wrote this one said that

“if someone was fearful of acknowledging their homosexuality to the authorities, then it may be reasonably practicable for them to make a claim some time after arrival, as we recognise the extremely difficult process of coming to terms with one’s own sexuality.”

If an asylum seeker has experienced what we know in some countries people experience because of their sexuality, I do not think that “coming to terms with one’s own sexuality” begins to describe it. That is why these amendments are needed.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Bishop of Durham

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, very briefly, my deep concern is that the Government’s proposal virtually rules out us ever being the first safe country in which to arrive, simply because of our geography. That is the fundamental problem I have with the whole proposal, because it feels like we are removing ourselves from being a front-line nation in receiving people. I believe the Minister does not actually think that, but this would be the impact. We need to strike these clauses out.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my name is to a number of amendments in this group—including Amendments 69A, 71A, 71B, 73A and 73B—and they all come from the UNHCR. I had written down not “guardian” but “steward”, but it comes to the same thing—that is, stewardship of the convention. I am not suggesting for a moment that I would be happy—or that it would be happy—to see these clauses remain in the Bill, and I hope I am not too much in “lipstick on pigs” territory, but given that the UNHCR of all bodies has proposed these, I think it right that I speak to them, and I will do so reasonably quickly.

The UNHCR has reiterated that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to uphold the UK’s international obligations under the convention, and its long-standing role as a global champion of supporting and protecting refugees. It has reminded us that three safeguards are essential to any inadmissibility rules. First, they must not operate in a way that denies the fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum, which is another way of saying a good deal of what has already been said. Secondly, they must protect rights under international law during the refugee process and once a refugee has been recognised. Thirdly, the aim should be to increase access to asylum globally. Clause 15 does not meet those tests; in the interests of time, I will not go through why.

The amendments in my name are to prevent the UK breaching international standards. They would mean that a safe third state must be safe in law—I should put that first—but safe in practice, and that a claim must be considered under the Immigration Rules, not as an optional matter; they broaden the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider the application and reduce the risk of an asylum seeker being sent to a country which is not a signatory to the convention and does not respect the rights of refugees under international law. The “connection” would be what most people would regard as a connection in ordinary language, and they define a “relevant claim” as a claim for protective status consistent with the convention. On Tuesday there was a lot of discussion about the importance of the convention as a matter of morality and, very importantly, as law. These amendments relate to both.

On the issue of formal returns agreements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, Amendment 195 would require a returns agreement before regulations were brought into force. I agree with that but with the condition that the agreements were acceptable. The amendment perhaps begs the question: I would like to think that it would be possible—it would be proper—for Parliament to have a role, which it will in an international agreement, and that amendments that are thought by Parliament to be required are made, so that the agreement is not just imposed.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Bishop of Durham

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I speak once more from these Benches, recognising that the argument has been made again and again. I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and to concur with all that he said. As my right reverend friend the Bishop of Worcester reminded the House last week—he kindly spoke for me because I could not be present in Committee—this debate resonates with the nativity story, the story of a child fleeing persecution. The voices of these children are too often drowned out by conflict and violence, by traffickers and by political leaders. Let this House speak on their behalf by voting for the amendment.

I shall try to explain again why the Government’s change is proving to be so difficult for those who work with migrant children to accept, and thus why many in this House find it difficult too. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, reminded the Committee and then the House just now, the Government opposed his amendments on previous occasions. The law as it stands was hard fought for; it was not easily won. Thus, the proposed removal appears to be the Government saying, “Well, we never really wanted the Dubs amendments, so now here is a chance to remove them.” I note that in the Conservative Party manifesto there is a reference to welcoming refugees, but the lack of a specific reference to child refugees and family reunion simply adds to public concern.

I fully accept the Minister’s personal commitment to migrant children. I also accept that there is every intention to offer a welcome and maintain family reunion, but what the Government’s proposals have conveyed is quite the opposite. I wrote to the Minister with a suggested compromise, accepting in my letter that it might not work as a proposal, but I am struggling to understand why the Government cannot see that the message they are conveying at present is a negative one, whatever their good intent.

From these Benches, my right reverend colleagues and I view this issue as a moral bell-wether for the future of our country. We want to be known as a country that is welcoming, compassionate and committed to playing our full part in responding to the deep issues that arise from the reality of refugees around the world. I believe that the Minister and the Government want to act with compassion; it is simply that what is proposed does not convey this.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned that, for some, this is cast as an issue of trust. Do we trust that the Government will deliver their promises to vulnerable children without legislative assurance in the EU withdrawal Bill? However, to my mind, this is a matter not simply of trust but of priority. Where do the Government’s priorities lie? It is important that they can negotiate a good deal for this country with our European neighbours, but we cannot set this against our responsibility to protect vulnerable children. That is what Clause 37 suggests: that the Government’s priorities necessarily mean that we cannot give legislative assurance that we, as a nation, will provide for vulnerable children to be reunited with their families in safety. I am sure that that is not the Government’s intention, but our actions testify to our values. The action of including Clause 37, removing the family reunion obligation from primary legislation, speaks louder and will be heard further beyond this place than promises of other legislation yet to be enacted.

Ensuring that there are safe, legal, effective and managed routes for child refugees to be reunited with their families in this country must remain an imperative. Schemes such as community sponsorship—here I declare my interest as a trustee of Reset—are an international gold standard for how to welcome refugees and provide new opportunities for those who have lost so much. We can hold our heads high because of the Government’s work in recent years to support refugee resettlement here. Now is not the time to contradict this good work with the consequences of Clause 37. Will we be open, sharing our prosperity and opportunity with children who deserve so much more than the precarious life of a refugee and have so much more to offer, or will we be closed to them, shut off from the world and our responsibilities as a global power? I believe the choice is clear, which is why I have added my name to this amendment. I urge others to support it and the Government to accept it.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to this amendment, as I did at the previous stage. Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is in danger of becoming a noun. I have been wondering whether and actually hoping that Clause 37 might be the result of the attentions of—if I can put it this way—an overly diligent draftsman who has failed to see the wider picture of how this looks; in modern parlance one would say the optics. We were told that a statutory negotiating objective is neither necessary nor the constitutional norm. It might not be necessary but it is not unnecessary either, and is the constitutional norm such a straitjacket of a convention that we cannot say what we mean in legislation?

As ever, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, put the constitutional point very clearly at the previous stage. He said that Clause 17 of the 2018 Act is

“an instruction to the Executive to open negotiations in a certain way”,—[Official Report, 15/1/20; col. 760.]

and that it is not up to Parliament to give instructions; I hope I have represented him properly. But as noble Lords will recognise, and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, Section 17 is only about opening the negotiations and seeking to negotiate. Without even getting into the relationship between Parliament and the Executive, where is the harm? Even if it is not how it is normally done and even if it is not terribly elegant, it makes Parliament’s view clear and it was accepted by the Executive in 2018.

I am on the same page as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I am puzzled and a bit suspicious, because when there is a rather technical point or amendment—we are being told that this is a technical point—on a sensitive issue, my antennae naturally twitch. The more the Government tell us that they are not making any real changes, although they have changed the words, the more my antennae wave around, trying to catch hold of what this is all about. I am not surprised that the phrase in the Minister’s letter about carrying out negotiations

“with full flexibility and in an appropriate manner across all policy areas”

was much referred to. Section 17 does not restrict that, although it does not mention reciprocity, as the Government did—but I do not think that that is material.

I raised a point last week about the differences in the wording for the child’s “best interests.” Under the existing provision, the child’s best interests are referred to in the context of coming to the UK. Clause 37 applies the best interests to joining a relative. I think that both of those are important. The Government assured us that there was no significance in that, but I do not want to let something that might be important go unchallenged. The Minister referred me to the term “equivalent circumstances”—she is nodding at that—but it is not in the same part of the clause. It is in subsection 1(b) rather than 1(a), so I do not think that that answers my “best interests” question. I also asked the Minister last week if she could make available a copy of the letter sent last October to the Commission which she said should reassure noble Lords, but she was not sure whether she could. As she has not been able to pursue that, I assume that it is not available, but perhaps she could confirm that.

I come back to the proposed change. It must mean something. It does not make the very modest objective of Section 17 any more achievable—certainly not to most noble Lords who have spoken. Noble Lords will understand that given the subject matter of the clause and the relatively few individuals subject to it, there is a strong feeling that Parliament should not reduce our commitment to these children to safe and legal routes or–this was a point made by the right reverend Prelate—to be thought to be doing so.