Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 128C in my name, I shall also lend support to many of the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 128B in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which he has just outlined and to which I have added my name.

Amendment 128C is very simple. It places a duty on the Government to do what they say they want to do and are going to do anyway. This amendment imposes a duty on the Home Secretary to create additional—I emphasise “additional”—safe and legal routes by 31 January 2024, six months after the anticipated passage of the Bill, under which refugees and others in need of international protection may come to the UK lawfully from abroad.

The whole purpose of the Illegal Migration Bill is to shut down unsafe and illegal routes and its whole narrative is to ensure that genuine asylum seekers and refugees can then come via safe and legal routes. If that is the motive for the Bill, as the Government have repeatedly communicated, this amendment will not be difficult for the Minister to accept.

I have been asked why I believe it necessary to establish a duty on the Government to create these routes: why is it not enough for the Government just to be required to lay before Parliament a report detailing the safe and legal routes that they intend to introduce? There are pages of the Bill weighted towards eliminating illegal and unsafe routes, but only a few sentences indicating an intention to create legal and safe routes—and then only to lay a report before Parliament detailing the Government’s intention to create safe and legal routes.

This is simply not certain enough. If the Government are genuinely seeking to establish safe and legal routes, they would do so with the same weight of legislation as is committed to the abolishing of unsafe and illegal routes. I have the greatest respect for the character and integrity of my noble friend the Minister but, with the all the best will in the world, many assurances have been given and many reports written that have never delivered on the well-meaning and well-intentioned promises of Ministers. For this House to be certain that the abolishing of unsafe and illegal routes will genuinely lead to the creation of safe and legal routes, a legal duty set out in the Bill is what is required to balance the Bill and make good on the Government’s intent.

When announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary told the other place:

“Having safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, is the right way to support people seeking refuge in this country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/23; col. 170.]


This amendment would simply create a duty to have these safe and legal routes, capped and legitimised through a decision by Parliament, as the Home Secretary so eloquently laid out. Indeed, in December the Prime Minister announced that through the Illegal Migration Bill:

“The only way to come to the UK for asylum will be through safe and legal routes”,


and he indicated that that would be through the Illegal Migration Bill. He promised that

“as we get a grip on illegal migration, we will create more of those routes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/22; col. 888.]

The Government assure us that the Bill will swiftly get a grip on illegal migration so this amendment provides assurance that the Government will deliver on the Prime Minister’s stated intent of creating, through the Bill, safe and legal routes. Vague promises for establishing safe and legal routes towards the end of 2024 or commitments to establish safe routes after we have stopped the boats are not sufficient. A duty is required in the Bill that the Home Secretary must, by 31 January 2024, make regulations specifying additional safe and legal routes.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. Amendment 130 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Carlile, Lord Kerr and Lord Dubs, to whom I am very grateful for their support.

First, I must apologise for inadvertently misleading your Lordships’ Committee in the early hours of Tuesday morning, when referring to age-assessment data from Full Fact, at col. 1805. Although, in the absence of transparent published data there remains a big question mark over the Immigration Minister’s claims about the percentage of adult males pretending to be children, and similar ministerial claims, the Full Fact data were not in fact comparable and had been misinterpreted by a journalist. Clearly, I should have checked my facts rather than relying on a newspaper report. I apologise for that.

The amendment provides for a visa scheme that would allow those with viable asylum claims who meet specified conditions to travel safely and legally to the UK to make such claims. Before providing a more detailed explanation, I emphasise that the proposal is based on the premise that unites us, so clearly articulated by the right reverend Prelate: a desire to stop unsafe travel to the UK, be it by boat or other routes, such as hidden unsafely in a lorry. As such, it would damage significantly the people smugglers’ business model—again, a goal that unites us. Where we differ from the Government is in our belief that the way to do this is not by, in effect, ending the right to claim asylum in the UK. There is a clear distinction between deterring people from making dangerous journeys and stopping them claiming asylum.

Of course, safe and legal routes are part of the answer, and here I support in particular Amendment 128B, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 128C. Personally, I am unhappy with the idea of a fixed cap on the numbers entitled to enter on safe and legal routes if it is what the JCHR describes as a “hard” cap. The right reverend Prelate makes an important point in excluding the listed schemes from the cap, on the grounds that these schemes are not currently capped. I also support the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation that children should be excluded from the cap. I would be grateful to know the Government’s response to that. It should also be noted that she emphasises that

“safe and legal routes must be agreed in parallel to the passage of the Bill”,

which is relevant to Amendment 128C.

But however generous the safe and legal routes option is, the UNHCR makes it clear that it is not a substitute for the right to claim asylum under the refugee convention. As my honourable friend Olivia Blake said when she spoke to a similar amendment in the Commons,

“as it stands … there is no way for the many thousands of people who have already started their journey to get on to a safe and legal route … You cannot reduce the number of boats if the people who are going to try to make that journey are already on their journey and have no alternatives to come to the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/3/23; col. 754.]

This proposal offers a means of reducing significantly the numbers arriving by boat or other irregular and unsafe means. It does so by retaining the right to claim asylum, but in a way that, in effect, opens up another safe and legal route. I thank Care4Calais and the PCSU —two organisations working on the front line—for all the work they have put into it. When a similar amendment was proposed in the Commons, the Minister did not grace it with a response, so we are giving the Government an opportunity to do so today.

The proposal builds on the Ukraine model of safe passage, for which, for all its difficulties, the Government can take credit. I hope that they will learn and apply lessons to other groups with a strong case. It is no coincidence that no Ukrainian has, to my knowledge, crossed on a small boat or used people smugglers. Where the proposal differs from the Ukrainian scheme is that, on arrival in the UK, applicants holding a safe passage visa would enter the normal UK asylum process —speeded up considerably, I hope—and if, at that stage, they were found not to be eligible for asylum, they would not be allowed to stay in the UK.

A safe passage visa would typically be claimed online, as in the Ukrainian scheme, although provision would be made for applications also to be made at existing visa centres. I am assured that NGOs would undoubtedly help those with literacy problems. To qualify for a safe passage visa, a person would have to be in the EU—although, if successful, it could be expanded at a later date—not be a national of the EU, Liechtenstein, Norway or Switzerland, and have a viable asylum claim. The viability of the claim would be determined in a similar way to the initial screening interview that currently takes place at the first step in the asylum process in the UK. This would ensure that clearly unfounded claims would be turned down at this point. Successful applicants would be sent an electronic letter that they could use to enter the UK lawfully. On arrival, they would be required to visit a UK centre to provide biometric data.

An initial fear that I had was that well-founded claims might be turned down as a way of reducing the numbers entering the UK, and that, although legal aid would be available on appeal, an applicant not in the country would clearly be at a disadvantage. The point was made to me, however, that the scheme relies on it being applied in good faith. It will work only if it is seen to work fairly—if claims are processed in a timely manner and a realistic number receive visas. If the Government are genuine in their claim that their primary motivation with the Bill is to stop unsafe journeys on flimsy boats, they have a real incentive to make it work.

I know, too, that some fear that this represents an open-borders policy, so I emphasise that it does not. The reverse is the case: it offers a way of replacing the current chaos in the channel—the Government’s attempts to regulate that have failed—with managed and controlled borders, where we know who is making the crossing. As I said, safe passage visas would be available only to those with viable asylum claims. Those refused a visa would receive a clear personal communication explaining that they do not have a viable claim, nor, therefore, the chance of a safe future in the UK were they to try to reach it by irregular means. Surely that would be a more effective deterrent, consistent with our international obligations, than the Bill—the deterrent effect of which is at best uncertain.

Nor does the evidence support the fear that this would attract more asylum seekers to the UK. Research suggests that immigration policies do not drive asylum seekers’ destinations. The introduction of the Ukrainian scheme, on which the safe visa scheme is modelled, did not lead to the great majority of those fleeing Ukraine seeking refuge in the UK. We know that the great majority of those seeking asylum in Europe do so in other European countries and there is no evidence to suggest that they will not continue to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

On the first point, I do not have that detail to hand so I will go away and find that out and write to the noble Lord. But on the second point, obviously, the UK resettlement scheme is a general scheme to take refugees who have been identified by the UNHCR and in that sense it is not geographically specified. Obviously, these are all issues which would be considered in the report provided for under Clause 59, so the noble Lord is right to identify that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Before the Minister moves on, I asked a question about children, which was echoed by my noble friend Lord Coaker. The Minister mentioned children in relation to appropriate routes but the Children’s Commissioner has argued that children should be excluded from any cap. I asked what the Government’s response was to that recommendation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to forgive me; I was going to come to that. I have met with the Children’s Commissioner and we have an ongoing dialogue on the provisions in the Bill. There is no intention to exclude children, for the simple reason that children utilise resources in the same way as adult asylum seekers do. Therefore, in assuming the global level of resources needed to provide adequate support and integration for asylum seekers, whether adults or children, it is appropriate that a global view be taken. Therefore, it is necessary to take a global view of the cap.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and also in the clause stand part debates, to which I was pleased to add my name. He has made the case so clearly and powerfully that I need say only a few words, but I do want to emphasise the significance of these amendments, from the perspective of both citizenship—the practical and symbolic importance of which we debated last year during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill—and of children, who are, as we have heard, the main victims of these clauses that deny citizenship rights in perpetuity.

As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, said in the Supreme Court, the “intrinsic importance of citizenship” should never be played down. I thus agree with the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty that the provisions are “profoundly misconceived and harmful”. A theme running through our proceedings has been the Bill’s failure to give primary consideration to the best interests of children, as required by the UN convention and Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. The Bill’s citizenship provisions, which really have no place in a Bill focused on irregular migration, target children in a way that is both discriminatory and punitive. Not surprisingly, this is of profound concern to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, which advises that this is a

“fundamentally discriminatory approach to citizenship acquisition”

and potentially, as we have already heard, in breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR. Babies and children will be subject to a “harsh and life-determining penalty” for an immigration breach when they were minors.

Of course, it is deemed to be immaterial that the breach was due to their parents’ rather than their own actions. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission warns that the provisions risk discriminating against a child for the actions of a parent, contrary to Article 2 of the UNCRC—a warning echoed in the JCHR report. I also congratulate the JCHR on getting this out so quickly, especially as the Home Secretary apparently did not answer until the last second. In fact, we had already started in Committee before the committee received her reply to its questions, sent some time ago, I believe.

The UNHCR makes a similar point in arguing that punishing a child for the actions of a parent in this way runs counter to Article 34 of the refugee convention, Article 32 of the 1954 convention, and Articles 3 and 7 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is an example of how the Bill puts at risk the safety and welfare of children.

I will just give an example—a hypothetical example of how it might work—from the Project and Amnesty. Thomas is brought to the UK as a child. He is so neglected or abused by his parents that the local authority is compelled to apply for, and is granted, a full care order. He is now growing up in the care of the UK state, and his future properly now lies here, meaning that he may be registered as a British citizen under Section 3(1). However, if his entry to the UK was without permission, he will be permanently excluded from his citizenship rights by Clause 31(2). You can hardly blame the child for what has happened.

Both the UNHCR and the JCHR argue that Clause 35 —which, as we heard, gives the Secretary of State the power not to treat a person as ineligible for British citizenship if this is necessary to comply with the ECHR—should be not discretionary but based on compliance or otherwise with the ECHR. The PRCBC and Amnesty argue that the link here is inappropriate —they may well be right—but, if it is going to be made, it should revert to the original wording, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in Amendment 98EA. The JCHR expresses puzzlement as to why the Government chose to narrow the available exceptions originally listed, thereby risking contravening international law obligations other than those arising from the ECHR. So, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked, can the Minister now explain the justification for doing so?

In conclusion, once again this Government are showing disregard for the importance of citizenship and for the best interests of children. As they have made one welcome concession in this area, I hope that they will accept the strength of the case for removing entitlement to citizenship entirely from the Bill, or, at the very least—and it is the very least—reverting to the original wording of Clause 35.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for tabling Amendment 98I, and I thank Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens for their steadfast support for those who wish to register as British citizens. My friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who added his name, was here earlier in the day but was unable to stay through to the evening.

This amendment aims to tackle a matter of great significance that affects the lives of many individuals residing in the UK under British national overseas visas. They include many people from Hong Kong who are rightly entitled to British citizenship but face serious uncertainty about their legal status. Many Hong Kongers have reported appalling responses from immigration officials regarding their children born here, being told that they cannot have any travel documentation and even querying whether they are allowed to become British citizens in the future.

We all know the turmoil and uncertainty that has plagued the people of Hong Kong in recent years—many have been subjected to unimaginable hardships, fearing for their safety and the future of their families—so it is concerning that so many face anxiety about the citizenship status of their children. The people of Hong Kong have shown immense courage and resilience against Beijing’s totalitarian regime, and many of those who have come to the UK face profound challenges, including concern about the safety and security of their families living abroad. The nature of the treatment of protesters and dissidents by the Chinese Communist Party means that many of them are now permanently settling in the UK. This amendment is, simply, testament to our support for the people of Hong Kong, and it ensures that their status is not subject to further confusion.

All the way through Committee, it has appeared that the Minister and his team have set their face against accepting any amendments whatever. Here, I suggest, are two—the well and clearly argued one from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and this one from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—on which they could really give something tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

On the first point, there is no suggestion that these measures impute culpability in the way that the noble Baroness suggests. On the second point, I would have thought that the noble Baroness would approve of the fact that the statute relies upon the convention rights as being the pressure valve for exceptional circumstances in the way that I have described.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

It may be that I have not quite understood what the noble Lord is saying, but the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I specifically asked the kind of question that was posed by the JCHR. Why have the Government narrowed the reference down from the original wording of the clause to the ECHR, when originally it was to any other international agreement to which the United Kingdom was a party? Why has that gone?

--- Later in debate ---

Let us be clear: if these clauses are left unamended then, taken alongside the removal of all constraints on the detention of unaccompanied children, a child may be detained and, on the basis of an unreliable visual Home Office age assessment, could be removed from the United Kingdom having not even had the chance to challenge the decision. The determination that an individual may be a child and therefore could deserve all the rights of a child should, and must, be reason enough to prevent their removal. The situation must not be allowed to stand and it is for this reason that I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 124 and 125 are in my name and they have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who cannot be here but wanted me to say that she strongly supports the amendments, and the right reverend Prelate. I also support other amendments to which I have added my name—indeed, all amendments in this group, including the propositions that Clauses 55 and 56 should not stand part of the Bill. My amendments are more limited and would simply remove the power through regulation to treat those claiming to be a child as an adult, should they refuse to consent to scientific age assessment, and instead stipulate that regulations must make it clear that refusal to consent to such an assessment should not be taken to damage credibility.

The Immigration Minister justified the introduction of these clauses by way of government amendment on the unevidenced grounds that

“a very large number of young adults do pose as children”

and that he did not want

“to see a situation in which young adults are regularly coming into the UK illegally, posing as children, and ending up in our schools, in foster-care families and in unaccompanied-minor hotels, living cheek by jowl with genuine children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 777.]

The new provisions would, he concluded, help to “stamp out this evil”. Clearly, it was not such an evil that these provisions were included in the original Bill. Instead, they appear to be a response to an assertion in Committee from Ben Bradley MP, again unevidenced. Yet, as the JCHR points out, it is not clear why the Government are legislating again on the issue so soon after passing the Nationality and Borders Act, without first subjecting that to post-legislative scrutiny.

More detailed evidence published around the same time by the Helen Bamber Foundation and cited by the right reverend Prelate indicated that the Minister had “wildly”—its word—exaggerated the proportion of age-disputed children found to be adults; this was based on freedom of information requests. Just today, Full Fact reported that a claim made in Parliament by the Immigration Minister that up to a fifth of adult male asylum seekers pretend to be children on arrival was false. FoI data showed that, between January and November last year, the actual figure was 1%. Can the Minister explain the discrepancy please?

This all reinforces the evidence from a Refugee Council study last year, which found that only 14 out of 223 young people with whom it worked in 2021, whose age had initially been determined as “certainly adult” by the Home Office, were in fact found to be adult. The council expressed serious concern that the wrongful assessment of children as adults is causing long-term harm to children as well as significant safeguarding risks. More recently, some of the children it has helped, who are at risk of being sent to Rwanda because of wrongful assessment, spoke of their fear and shock.

A different form of evidence came last year from a highly critical report by the independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on the processing of small boat arrivals. It said:

“The treatment of those claiming to be children was not child-centred …The age assessment process was perfunctory and engagement with the young people was minimal”.


As the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee pointed out, safeguarding issues do not arise only when adults pose as children. It said in a report:

“There is an equally important safeguarding issue when minors are incorrectly aged as adults and so inappropriately placed in adult facilities where they may be at risk”.


The implications of all this have become that much more serious in the context of Clauses 55 and 56 and of changes to age assessment—rejected by this House last year, to no avail. Our main focus last year was the introduction of scientific assessment and, in particular, the use of X-rays, in response to considerable concerns voiced by health bodies such as the British Dental Association and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. The latter is particularly concerned about Clauses 55 and 56 in the current Bill, noting that

“The science on age assessment is not robust enough to accurately determine a person’s age, which could result in a child being incorrectly assessed as an adult”.


The interim advisory committee itself proposed a cautious approach given that:

“There is no method, biological or social worker-led, that can predict age with precision”.


It also advocated that

“Any methodology used for the assessment of age must respect and prioritise the dignity of the individual being assessed and should minimise physical or psychological harm”.

I would argue that these clauses do not respect and prioritise the dignity of the child, as they are based on the assumption that the child is lying.

Crucial here is the issue of consent, on which the committee’s recommendation was very clear, saying that the child

“should be provided with clear information explaining the risks and benefits of biological evaluation in a format that allows the person undergoing the process to give informed consent and no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent”.

The committee’s advice underlined that

“in cases of refusal, the applicant should not be automatically considered an adult”,

and that:

“The consequences of refusal should not be so disproportionately adverse as to bias the applicant towards consent”.


It advised that

“it should be accepted that there may be many reasons”

for refusal to consent to biological assessment, which reflect different backgrounds. For example, the child may

“have witnessed or experienced trauma from their own homeland’s government institutions and may view all authority with suspicion and fear”.

Critical too is the question of capacity for consent. Can the Minister say how capacity will be determined and what will happen to children who lack the capacity to consent to the use of scientific methods? The British Association of Social Workers makes the point:

“The question of whether the asylum seeker can consent to the medical intervention is completely separate from the question of whether they are a child”.


Yet Clause 56, which gives the Home Secretary considerable discretion through regulations, in effect conflates the two. In doing so, it undermines the possibility of genuine consent and risks further trauma for children.

In response to the interim advisory committee’s report, the CEO of the Refugee Council said:

“These children simply want to start rebuilding their lives after the traumatic experiences they went through. They put their trust in us hoping they will get the support they need — it’s vital that they are safeguarded and provided the care that they need as they go through the system. The government must not ignore the committee’s findings”.


Can the Minister explain why the Government have ignored the very clear advice of their own advisory committee on the question of consent?

Do the Government at least accept the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that

“The power in clause 56(1) has such significant implications for an individual’s legal rights that it should be subject to the draft affirmative procedure”,


and the committee’s suggestion that “indicative draft regulations” should be made available during the Bill’s passage? In a similar vein, the JCHR recommends that guidance is issued

“as soon as possible setting out what would constitute reasonable grounds for refusing consent”.

Can we expect to see this before Report?

The Constitution Committee also warned that Clause 55 raises serious legal and constitutional issues. Others are better placed to pursue these, but as Justice, among others, points out, it “drastically reduces the accountability” of the Home Secretary for complex decisions about age and permits a child’s

“deportation when they are still pursuing a legal claim that they are a child”—

the normal right of appeal having been abolished.

The supplementary ECHR memo states that the Government

“concluded that it is important to make this change to prevent individuals frustrating the aims of the Bill”.

Could the Minister explain how this mean-minded conclusion can justify the limitations on a child’s rights? As the JCHR points out, this is clearly not in any child’s best interests and is not, in its view, reasonable given the

“far-reaching consequences for their treatment, their lives and their rights”.

What is the Government’s response to the clear recommendation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that age-disputed children should not be removed to a third country? What steps will be taken to ensure that, in the words of the memo,

“The appropriate support and facilities”


are

“in place in the country of removal to ensure that the individual can effectively participate in their judicial review from abroad”?

Even with Zoom et cetera, it is difficult to see how a child can participate effectively from afar.

In conclusion, I simply quote the Children’s Commissioner, who has said in no uncertain terms that it is unacceptable to treat a child as an adult on the basis of their refusal to consent to scientific methods. She asks how genuine consent is possible, free from duress, given the implications of not consenting. She concludes:

“Where a child’s age is disputed … those awaiting resolution should be treated as vulnerable children first and foremost”.


Instead, as elsewhere in this Bill, it is a case of migrant first, not child first and certainly not child foremost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I fear that we are speaking at cross purposes. I certainly would not compel any child to participate in age assessment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The whole point is that they are, in effect, being compelled. This point was made by the interim age advisory committee—a committee set up by the Government. Why are the Government ignoring its advice? They are doing the opposite of what it says should be done. It said:

“The consequences of refusal should not be so disproportionately adverse as to bias the applicant towards consent”.


That is exactly what is happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness now invites me to embark on a discussion that she just said she did not want to have. I agree with her first position because it is not relevant to the amendment that she raises.

Amendment 127 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on scientific age assessment methods, the attendant scientific advice and the statistics relating to their use. The Home Office already publishes such information: quarterly datasets including age disputes are available on GOV.UK—we have heard references to those in Committee this evening—and, when scientific methods of age assessment are introduced, the Home Office will ensure that we report and monitor that information. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee continues to provide scientific advice to the Home Secretary and the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser. Their first report was published on GOV.UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, identified, and the Government will continue to seek advice from the committee. Given that we already publish the kind of information and data proposed by the noble Lord, I submit that his amendment is unnecessary.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

What is the point of seeking advice if it is then ignored? While I am on my feet, because I was not quick enough earlier, the Minister gave some figures that the right reverend Prelate, other noble Lords and I disputed, but it is as if we have not spoken. The evidence we presented was just ignored. It suggests that government Ministers tend to wildly exaggerate the proportion of children who are wrongly assessed as adults presenting themselves as children. We want the Minister to engage, if not now then in writing, with the figures that we came up with. I am appalled that the Minister has not even read the Helen Bamber Foundation report, because that is the best report on age assessment that there is. I very much hope that at least his officials have read it, but I will leave it at that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course we consider the advice provided by the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee and the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser, and we will continue to do so. It is because we are in the process of awaiting such advice that the age assessment process is not fully operational. That demonstrates that we take and appreciate the advice that we are given.

As to the information questions, I will look at the statistics that the noble Baroness raises. I do not recognise them immediately, which is not to say that they are not properly reflective. There are a lot of statistics published on the Home Office website, so I appreciate that there may be some conclusions to draw. I will certainly look at that.

Government Amendment 123C is a clarificatory amendment that simply ensures that Clause 55 applies to any decisions following the regulations made under Clause 56, which automatically assumes someone to be an adult as a result of their refusal to consent to a scientific age assessment. It includes a decision as to whether an individual has reasonable grounds to refuse consent to a scientific age assessment.

We cannot escape the fact that almost half of asylum seekers claiming to be children were found to be adults. Those seeking to game the system in this way create clear safeguarding risks to genuine children and delay their removal. Clauses 55 and 56 are a necessary part of the framework of the Bill to ensure that we can swiftly remove those subject to the duty in Clause 2. I therefore invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

128A: Clause 57, page 59, leave out line 4
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove Albania from the list of “safe states” with reference to which asylum and human rights claims will be deemed inadmissible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 128A is also being proposed by the JCHR. I thank my noble friend Lord Cashman for his support, although I am afraid he has had to leave.

The amendment seeks to remove Albania from the list of safe states with reference to which asylum and human rights claims will be deemed inadmissible. I was prompted to table this amendment following a meeting with a group of young Albanians, which was organised by the Migrant and Refugee Children’s Legal Unit, MiCLU, and the Shpresa Programme. I am grateful to them, and to Professor Helen Stalford, for the information they have provided. All the young people had sought asylum in the UK. Some had been accepted, and some were still awaiting determination of their claims.

The young people had two clear messages. The first related to how they are talked about and perceived, by politicians and the media in particular, which frames discussions about the rights of Albanians to enter and stay in the UK. The young people talked about how hurtful and injurious to their identity it was to be constantly talked about as criminals with no right to be here.

One young Albanian asylum seeker quoted in the MiCLU briefing talked about having experienced racism:

“When you say you are from Albania, people distance from you. People have said I am a criminal and other words. It becomes hard for people to engage in society. Even people who have status”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.

The measures in Clause 57 aim to deter claims from nationals from safe countries who seek to abuse our asylum system and do not need to seek protection in the UK. It will consequently reduce pressure on our asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of our protection.

Treating asylum claims from EU nationals in this way is not new, as I think all noble Lords recognised. It has been a long-standing process in the UK asylum system and is also employed by EU states. However, EU states are not the only safe countries. It is right that we expand these provisions so that they apply not only to nationals of the EU but to other safe countries that we have assessed as generally safe. At this time, the list has been expanded to include the other European Economic Area countries, Switzerland and Albania. This clause also includes powers that would allow us to expand this list further to other safe countries of origin in future.

Furthermore, these provisions will expand this approach to include human rights claims. If a country is generally safe, it stands to reason not only that asylum claims should be declared inadmissible but that any related human rights claims should be treated likewise. If a person has other reasons for wishing to come to the UK, they should apply through the appropriate routes. People should not seek to use our asylum system to circumnavigate those routes.

However, even if a country is generally considered safe, it is acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to return an individual. If the person does not meet the conditions of the duty and makes an asylum or human rights claim, and there are exceptional circumstances as a result of which the Secretary of State considers that a claim ought to be considered, then their claims will be considered in the UK. If a person meets the conditions of the duty and makes a protection and human rights claim, and the Secretary of State accepts that there are exceptional circumstances which prevent removal to their country of origin, they will instead be removed to a safe third country. Therefore, it is considered that these provisions incorporate appropriate safeguards to ensure that we will not return an individual where it would not be safe to do so.

Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, seeks to remove Albania from the list of safe states for the purposes of Section 80A. For a country to be added to the list of safe countries of origin, it must be assessed as safe, as per the test set out in new Section 80AA of the 2002 Act. We are satisfied that, in general, Albania—a NATO member, an ECAT signatory and an EU accession country—meets that test. Indeed, the cross-party Home Affairs Committee, chaired by Dame Diana Johnson, said in its report published just yesterday:

“Albania is a safe country and we have seen little evidence that its citizens should ordinarily require asylum”.


Furthermore, as already set out, the provisions incorporate appropriate safeguards, should it be accepted that there are exceptional circumstances why an Albanian national should not be returned there.

As I have indicated, these sensible extensions to the inadmissibility arrangements which currently apply to EU nationals will help to reduce the pressures on our asylum system and enable us better to focus on those most in need of protection. I commend the clause to the Committee and invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lord Hacking; he has been extremely noble to stay this late to speak, and he speaks from his first-hand experience of Albania.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that if there had not been so much repetition, we would not still be here at this time. However, the Minister, in his reply, has shown why sometimes there is repetition: because there is no evidence that the Minister listens. I talked about the Home Affairs Committee and why the response to it was not good enough, but he read his speech about the Home Affairs Committee as if it had not been mentioned. This happens time and time again. The main repetition I heard this evening was from the Government Benches giving very detailed information about the Policy Exchange report over and again. We could have done without that.

It is late, and I do not think that we want to go beyond 2 am, if we can possibly help it; I am shaking with tiredness. The Minister has not engaged at all with the arguments put that, while Albania may be a safe country for many people, it is not safe for everyone. It is just not good enough to say, “Well, in exceptional circumstances, their claims can be considered”. There are some very vulnerable people—people who have fled extremely difficult circumstances that none of us would want to face—who have sought asylum here and been granted asylum here for good reason. I sometimes wonder what the point is of us standing up saying these things, when the Minister then stands up and gives us a response that takes no account whatever of what has been said. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 128A withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 8 ensures that there is support available to individuals who would otherwise be destitute where their asylum claims have been declared inadmissible, pending their removal from the United Kingdom. It also seeks to incentivise those whose asylum claims have been declared inadmissible to comply with the arrangements to remove them from the UK, whether that be to their country of origin—where it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country. These provisions will support the overall objective of the Bill and ensure that those who come to the UK illegally will not be able to stay. Pending their removal, we will ensure that we support those who are complying with arrangements for removal. I make no apology for introducing these measures to protect and preserve the integrity of our asylum and migration system.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for setting out her amendments to Clause 8. Amendments 57C and 57F seek to create a right of appeal against a decision to refuse an application for support under Section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which would take effect only if supporting provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 are brought into force. The Government keep these matters under review but I can answer the noble Baroness’s question directly: there are no current plans to bring those measures into force, and so we consider these amendments unnecessary. Therefore, those who are refused support under Section 4 of the 1999 Act will still be able to appeal the decision.

Similarly, we do not consider Amendment 57D necessary. As I have told noble Lords frequently throughout Committee, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove people. We expect that the overwhelming majority of those who fall within the scope of the duty to remove will need accommodation as well as financial support. These individuals will therefore be provided with financial support to meet their essential living needs, pending their removal from the UK.

Although I recognise the intention behind Amendment 57E, the Government do not consider it necessary to provide a statutory basis on which to provide temporary support. As I have said, our intention is to detain and swiftly remove those who enter illegally and meet the conditions in Clause 2. The details of how the scheme will work in practice, including the support provided during this interim period, are currently under active consideration. We are confident that there is sufficient scope to be able to provide adequate support to individuals pending a determination of their application under Section 4 of the 1999 Act. Obviously, we will bear in mind the contributions made during this short debate.

Finally, Amendment 57G seeks to amend uncommenced provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 and, in so doing, alter the long-standing position that Section 4 support would be available only to people who face a genuine obstacle in leaving the UK. The Government have no plans to implement the 2016 Act provisions in the immediate future; even if we were to do so, we see no need to alter the existing approach to eligibility under Section 4 for this group of people. Eligibility for Section 4 support is a long-standing position. As long as individuals whom we support pending their removal co-operate with the process, they will remain eligible for support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord German, and the train-bound right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham asked about the Section 4 application form. We are working on the arrangements for implementing these provisions. As part of that, we will consider what changes, if any, are required to the Section 4 application form.

Where necessary, the Government will provide accommodation and basic support for those who are subject to the duty to make arrangements for removal and who are not being detained pending their removal. In answer to the right reverend Prelate, I can assure him that, with the changes made by Clause 8, we consider that there is sufficient legislative cover to provide such support where a person would otherwise be left destitute. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate, in his absence; we know that he had to get his train. I am also grateful to the Minister for answering more questions than I expected him to be able to.

I am disturbed by the proposition that it is not necessary to provide a statutory basis for temporary support because the intention is to remove people quickly. The Government are the only people who think that removal will be quick. All the organisations on the ground predict a state of semi-permanent limbo—purgatory, as some of them have called it. There needs to be a proper statutory basis for the support that these people are provided with. I hope that the Minister will look at this point again.

Other noble Lords have asked questions that have not, I think, been answered. I would be grateful if the Minister or his officials could look through Hansard and answer any remaining questions. The noble Lord, Lord German, certainly asked a number of questions that have not been addressed. I will not detain the Committee now by pressing them—I am sure that the noble Lord will not either—but I ask that a letter answering those questions goes to the noble Lords who have participated in Committee before Report.

It would also be helpful if the Government published as clearly as they can a statement on what is proposed. We can piece bits together from the Minister’s reply today but the point has been made that local authorities, faith groups, refugee organisations and others need to start planning; they need to know. A clear statement would therefore be helpful.

I finish by quoting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who said that this is going to be like detention without walls. That is a very telling statement. It is important that we get this right. We do not want large numbers of people destitute on our streets because they are in this permanent limbo. I look forward to seeing what the Minister has to say in any subsequent letters but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 57C withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Noble Lords who spoke about this in Grand Committee were uneasy about the SI’s intentions and its implications. The answers that we have received mean that these regulations need to be repealed as a matter of urgency. Remember that HMO licensing came in because of the tragic deaths of eight asylum seekers. With the latest comments over the weekend from certain Home Office Ministers about the living conditions of people seeking asylum, with up to four people having to share each hotel room, it is clear that the Home Office cannot be trusted with the safety and dignity of those seeking asylum and their having safe, habitable accommodation. HMOs, regardless of who is living there, need to be safe and to be inspected by an independent local authority licensing scheme. That is why this statutory instrument should be repealed.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 58. I am sorry that I could not be at the Grand Committee debate on the regulations because of another commitment. Given the representations that have been made by a range of an organisations, I felt it was important to say a few words.

All people should have access to secure, safe and decent accommodation, no matter what status they hold. While it is right that we should not have people housed in hotels for longer than necessary, the removal of so-called red tape, which potentially includes shortcuts around safety standards, as we have heard, seems exceedingly risky. Once again, we have been asked to put our trust in the Home Office and its subcontractors instead of properly resourcing local authorities to provide adequate housing. This is not the way to address the backlog or accommodation shortages. The speed of procurement should not come at the possible cost of life.

Earlier this month, while the Levelling-Up Secretary was unveiling new laws protecting renters’ rights, his colleagues were debating the Government’s intention to scrap HMO licensing for asylum seekers’ accommodation. That seems somewhat perverse. The Government state in their Explanatory Memorandum to the regulations that part of the rationale for the change was that subcontractors

“raised concerns that … regulation is posing a barrier to acquiring … properties”.

But the suspicion is that subcontractors’ concerns are motivated more by profits than by the need to reduce backlogs and move people into accommodation. As my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage asked during the Grand Committee debate, what evidence is there—again there is this question of evidence; it seems that with every amendment we are asking for evidence—to suggest that this change in regulations will speed up procurement of accommodation? The potential to undermine safety and standards seems very risky if there is not clear evidence to suggest that it will achieve the Home Office’s intended outcomes. Local authorities are concerned that any further erosion of enforcement powers will lead to a decrease in accommodation standards, where the reverse is needed.

The excellent briefing from the Chartered Institute of Housing, Crisis, JCWI and others argued:

“The assertion from the Government that HMO licence levels of protection will be maintained in these properties, but overseen by the Home Office rather than the local authority, is deeply suspect. People are already losing their lives in asylum accommodation managed by private subcontractors on behalf of the Home Office”.


Echoing the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, it was alarming to read at the weekend that asylum seekers were left on the streets in Westminster for two nights running because of accommodation problems and that the Immigration Minister had led moves to require groups of up to four adult males to share single rooms in so-called Operation Maximise. Richard Drax, a Conservative MP, has equated this to putting them in prison. As the leader of Westminster Council commented, to ask people who are

“likely to have been through significant and traumatic events … to share an inappropriately sized room”—

we are talking about a single room here, not some palatial five-star room—

“with multiple strangers defies common sense and basic decency”.

Basic decency, as well as safety, is what is at stake with these regulations.

Can the Minister give us an assurance that Operation Maximise will be abandoned at once in the interest of basic decency? With regard to these regulations, can he reassure us that the Home Office or its contractors have the skills to make a proper assessment of the risks around fire safety that an experienced and qualified local authority environmental health officer would have?

In the recent debate in Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked the Minister to confirm that the same conditions that apply to an HMO licence will be replicated in the contract with the provider of accommodation for those seeking asylum. I do not think that the noble Lord has asked this again tonight, but I hope he will forgive me if he has. As the DLUHC Minister was unable to answer the question because it related to Home Office responsibilities, perhaps the Minister could provide an answer now.

In conclusion, this amendment should have never been needed but, unless we get serious assurances around living and safety standards, I can only question how the Government have decided that creating unsafe homes and putting asylum seekers in them is a decent strategy. As the Chartered Institute of Housing has said, HMOs will undoubtedly prove cheaper, but at what cost?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment, at its heart, is about the Government’s proposal to exempt housing for asylum seekers from licensing conditions. My noble friend Lady Hamwee outlined the two principal areas of concern, which have been the thread throughout this short debate. One is the conditions of the accommodation and the second is the impact on the rented housing sector in its entirety. I would add that the limited number of properties that are available in the private rented sector is in danger of impacting seriously on the number of houses for people who are looking for that accommodation but are not asylum seekers.

I will ask the Minister as well about the devolved responsibilities in this area, because the private rented sector in Wales is quite differently managed under Welsh Parliament legislation. I would like to understand whether the Government have consulted the devolved Administrations to find out how they propose to deal with this matter. In the case of Wales, all private rented sector accommodation is required to be licensed, not just HMOs. There is a strict regime and landlords pay for that licence. Clearly, that has had some impact on raising standards. That is an important issue, and if it is going to be reduced further, the Government need to explain why.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a better way forward, and mentioned the need for a more collaborative, non-regulatory approach. My noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out that licensing provides protections, and I think we all understand that. He illustrated it by talking about smoke and CO₂ alarms. The reduction in standards is implicit in the proposals that are contained in the statutory instrument. It seems to me that we need to have a proper inspection regime, as stated by my noble friend Lord Scriven. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised the issue of the safety of people being at risk. That is at the heart of all this. Are we going to put the safety of this vulnerable group of people at risk by returning to the original situation before the HMO legislation came into place? Are we going to manage the contractors properly and correctly? Clearly, the process of creating unsafe homes is not in anybody’s interest in this country at all, and neither is placing people within them.

--- Later in debate ---

That is why initial health assessments for children must be carried out by a qualified doctor in a safe environment, with an interpreter. IHAs should not be carried out by care assistants working for detention centres and their contractors. Too much is at stake. Does the Minister believe, as he has repeatedly said in Committee, that deterrence should take precedence over rights? What is happening to these children in detention should not be tolerated. What healthcare and well-being standards will be in place for those in detention centres, especially minors, whether with their families or unaccompanied? The amendment sets out the legal framework by which it is perfectly possible to create safe standards to ensure that these children are protected properly. If the Minister cannot provide details, will he accept my amendment?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to ask this question in the next group, but it is more appropriate to ask it here. It was raised by Doctors Without Borders in its damning briefing: what specific care will be provided for children with pre-existing or emergent health needs?

Also, following on from my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I have been in correspondence with the UNHCR about the different interpretations of the UN convention and the refugee convention that came up when I asked on our first day in Committee why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body which has global responsibility for it. The Minister was rather dismissive of the UNHCR, which, in response, highlights that its position on the Illegal Migration Bill—one diametrically opposed to the Government’s—is that it will go against the obligations under the refugee convention. The UNHCR’s institutional position has been conveyed to the Government in the exercise of its responsibilities under Article 35. It does not accept that this is a legitimate interpretation of the refugee convention.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 69 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and others. My intervention is prompted by a meeting I had earlier today with the disabled Greens group, specifically on the question of meeting the needs of disabled asylum seekers and refugees. That caused me to look up the details of the UNHCR Detention Guidelines, specifically point 9.5, which says that states may be required to make reasonable accommodations to ensure that they meet the specific needs of disabled asylum seekers. It says:

“As a general rule, asylum-seekers with long-term physical, mental, intellectual and sensory impairments should not be detained”,


and that accommodation needs to be accessible.

The disabled Greens raised with me their particular concern about the barges, about which the Government seem very enthusiastic and to which they have been paying a great deal of attention. It is difficult to see how those barges could possibly meet the accommodation requirements of disabled asylum seekers.

A number of noble Lords referred to the historic situation at Manston, but we have seen the Chief Inspector of Prisons expressing great concern about what is happening there right at this moment. The focus has very much been on children but, if we are not able to identify and assist children appropriately, I really wonder whether we are also able to identify and assist refugees with disabilities, who may have specific needs. Can the Minister say how the Government will ensure that they meet the needs of asylum seekers with disabilities?

Finally, without in any way daring to intervene in a discussion between two lawyers on a fine technical point, I just note that Article 35 of the convention, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, says that:

“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.


The relationship does not look much like co-operation at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

My noble friend the Minister has a really difficult task, and he is aware that I am not comfortable with many aspects of the Bill. However, I hope he will acknowledge that with these amendments I am offering something he can accept as a viable alternative to what is currently proposed in the Bill. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support these amendments generally, in particular those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—it is a pleasure to follow her powerful speech. I have added my name to Amendments 60 and 65.

It was to the Conservative-led coalition Government’s credit that they ended the routine detention of children and replaced it with strict limits. It is thus inexplicable, as the noble Baroness said, that the present Conservative Government should choose to reverse that policy. Prior to that reversal, the Royal College of General Practitioners, together with other royal colleges, published an intercollegiate briefing paper which described the

“significant harms to the physical and mental health of children and young people in the UK who are subjected to administrative immigration detention”.

It concluded that the immigration detention of children and their families is “harmful and unacceptable”. Among the evidence at the time was that provided by Medical Justice clinicians, who

“identified psychological harm to be caused and exacerbated by detention. Symptoms included bed wetting and loss of bowel control, heightened anxiety, food refusal, withdrawal … and persistent crying. Many children exhibited signs of developmental regression … some attempted to end their own lives”.

Today, many organisations—health, children’s and refugee—have briefed us about the likely health implications of such a reversal. To quote the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the effects on children’s

“physical and mental health included weight loss, sleeplessness, nightmares, skin complaints and self-harm, depression and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder”.

It also cites, as did the noble Lord, more recent collaborative evidence from Australia. The Royal College of Psychiatrists warns of the likely damaging impact on child mental and physical health of

“the restriction of movement, lack of community exposure, and limited access to health and educational services”

associated with detention. The Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody, a non-departmental public body, has warned the Home Secretary that this is

“a group who are particularly vulnerable, including in respect of mental ill-health, self-harm, and suicide due to trauma caused by dislocation from family”.

It also emphasises

“the link between the indefinite nature of detention and feelings of uncertainty and hopelessness, which can increase the risk of suicidality”.

A group of people with lived experience of the asylum system who advise Doctors of the World have written an open letter to Peers which speaks of their particular concern about the detention of children and pregnant women, whose plight I think we will debate shortly. However, more generally on the basis of their experience they write that

“some of us start shaking when detention centres are mentioned, or crying when watching the news about this Bill”.

The Children’s Commissioner has expressed deep concern at the prospect of children being detained for significant periods of time. She has not been reassured by the government amendment—mentioned by the noble Baroness—which does not specify any time limits or cover children who are with their families. Can the Minister tell us what steps will be taken to ensure that children are detained for as short a period as possible, as he assured us they would be? Also, what is his estimate of the numbers of children in detention as a result of this change of policy, in the absence of an impact assessment?

The Children’s Commissioner points out that Article 37 of the UNCRC is clear that children must be detained for as short a time as possible. UNICEF makes the point even more strongly, warning that the broad discretion on the detention of children provided by the Bill

“is not compatible with international standards”

and

“would not comply with the principle of the best interests of the child”.

Some, including the Committee on the Rights of the Child, have gone so far as to argue that Article 37 means that children should simply not be detained at all in an immigration context. Whether or not one accepts that interpretation, it is clear that the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 11 once again contravene a key international convention.

Although the Chief Inspector of Prisons’ report published yesterday, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord German, welcomed some improvements in the short-term holding facilities in Kent, it noted:

“Children were detained for far too long at all sites”.


During the previous six months:

“Detention records indicated that 337 children had been held in breach of the statutory 24-hour time limit”,


with one held for just over three days. It notes that some particularly vulnerable children were held for too long, giving the example of a 17 year-old girl with a 10 month-old baby—conceived, she said, following rape—who was held from 11.30 am and then overnight, for nearly 24 hours. If this is already happening, I dread to think what the situation will be like if Clause 10 reaches the statute book.

The incentives—pull factor—argument used by Ministers in their attempt to justify this retrograde policy would be laughable if the implications for children’s well-being and best interests were not so serious.

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67. I believe these are measured and proportionate steps to preserve existing safeguards around child detention—safeguards introduced by a Conservative Government.

Child detention must only ever be a last resort. That is a clear requirement, as many have said, of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also requires that detention be for the shortest appropriate time. Article 22 requires states to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive “protection and humanitarian assistance”. I hope and believe that these principles will be recognised and shared across your Lordships’ Committee.

There is strong evidence that the mental and physical health impacts of detention on children are severe. For refugee children, often escaping from traumatic circumstances, detention can further compound their trauma. Detention separates children from their peers, interrupts their education, exposes them to violence and denies them the safe, loving and supportive environment that children need to develop and thrive, and which is their right. Detention undermines parental authority and strains the parent-child relationship. This lasts well beyond the period of detention itself. Even short spells in detention can cause trauma and long-term mental health risks for children. When we detain refugee children, we should know that we are making their future lives and integration into society even harder.

My noble friends in government may have said that they recognise these impacts and do not want to detain children, but I am afraid that, as written, this is precisely what the Bill will do. My noble friend Lady Mobarik has explained the existing limits and how the Bill would change them. To reiterate: the detention powers in the Bill would apply to all migrant children and could see them routinely detained in any location for an indefinite period. This is simply not in line with the principle of child detention as a limited last resort.

We know that the immigration system is overstretched. As such, we can reliably expect every time limit and latitude granted to immigration officials by the Bill to be exploited to the full. Therefore, we must make certain that children’s rights and the limits on their detention are guaranteed in law. It is not good enough for my noble friend the Minister to say that child detention should be exceptional. The law must make it exceptional.

There are some problems which new laws can solve. There are other times when new laws will have no effect—or such serious side-effects that they are entirely disproportionate to the problem. If the Government do not feel that they can regulate immigration and asylum without locking up children for extended periods, that is indicative of a broken system. It is not a problem that is resolved by detaining children.

There is no evidence that the introduction of the existing limits on child detention have led to an increase in illegal immigration. There is no reason to think that removing these limits will improve the Government’s ability to control immigration and prevent the dangerous channel crossings. Exposing children to greater risk of harm, with no guarantee of preventing harm, is not a step we should accept.

The existing limits on child detention, brought in after careful consideration by the Conservative Government, meet the practical need that sadly exists. They ensure that detention is strictly controlled and time-limited, as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires. They mitigate the harm that detention causes. They make detention the last resort. That is what we must retain, and I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

68: Clause 10, page 17, line 18, leave out from “paragraph” to the end of line 19 and insert “(a) of the definition of “relevant detention power”, after “paragraph 16(2)” insert “, (2C) or (2D)””
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that section 60 of the Immigration Act 2016 (which limits the detention of pregnant women normally to 72 hours under existing powers of immigration detention) will apply to the new powers of detention created by Clause 10 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly to Amendment 70, which is also in my name. Before I start, I wish to put on the record my protest at the fact that we are debating these important issues after midnight. It is disgraceful.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who sends her apologies that she cannot be here, but who asked me to underline her strong support. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, for her support for both amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for each signing one of them. I am grateful to Women for Refugee Women and Medical Justice for their briefings on the amendments, but I feel we really cannot do them justice at this hour.

Amendment 68 does no more than restore the status quo ante, restricting the detention of pregnant women to 72 hours, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation. This restriction was introduced by the Immigration Act 2016 thanks to the strong opposition in your Lordships’ House to the detention of pregnant women.

Prior to that, there was no time limit and, although policy stated that pregnant women should be detained only in exceptional circumstances, in practice they were all too often detained in far from exceptional circumstances, and often for long periods. The Bill would return us to those dark days.

--- Later in debate ---

I conclude by reminding the Committee that the challenge we face in addressing the current levels of illegal entry into the United Kingdom calls for a new and radical approach. That means having to re-evaluate some legislation passed in recent years with the best of intentions. The challenges that we face now are different in kind and scale since Section 60 of the Immigration Act was enacted. Of course, pregnant women must be properly cared for while they are in detention and will be detained only in suitable accommodation with appropriate healthcare provision, but the fact that they are pregnant cannot of itself act as a bar on detention under the Bill. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, first of all, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. All, apart from the Minister, spoke in support of the amendment. I am very grateful to them for staying until this ungodly hour and not allowing the Government to chase them off, in effect, through tiredness. I know that others have not spoken, but I have felt their support anyway. People are nodding, and I thank them. I know that others who cannot stay this late have had to leave.

My noble friend Lord Ponsonby remarked on my anger that we are discussing this at such a ridiculous time. Yes, I am angry about that, but I am also angry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, set out very clearly, we are having to refight the battles that we fought in 2016 at some length in this House and won. It is so depressing to have to put the same arguments yet again, because the Government and Theresa May accepted them then, and we reached a compromise. That is why, although in my heart I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, because that is what I argued for in 2016, with my head I say that we have to just try to get back to where we were. There is no point trying to go further, I am afraid, although I accept what he said in principle.

I should also note that there are a whole lot of other people here who probably would not normally sit in on our Committee proceedings, and I hope they have learned something. I hope they have learned through having to listen to what we are doing to pregnant women—what their Government are doing to pregnant women. I hope they will think about it. Some of their colleagues on the government Benches might have words, perhaps, afterwards, because as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, made a very powerful case.

I thank the Minister for his response, but it was utterly disappointing. He utterly failed to engage with what his noble friend said about the vacuity of the incentives argument, and he had no other argument to put. There is no case, really, because, as she made clear, that argument does not stand up. It was very depressing and disappointing that there was no case.

I am also disappointed that a number of the questions I asked were not answered. I am not going to press them now— it is nearly 1 o’clock in the morning.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness. Any oversight was entirely a failure on my part. I will review the record and revert to the noble Baroness in writing, if that is acceptable.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

It is perfectly acceptable. I was just going to suggest that the Minister do that. I do not blame him at all, because I do not imagine he is that keen on arguing this out at 1 o’clock in the morning either.

We will return to this at Report—we have to. As a number of noble Lords said, this is a narrow amendment that does not drive a coach and horses through the whole Bill, much as I hate the Bill. It would not cost the Government anything to concede to this amendment before Report, rather than forcing us to come back then and go through the whole thing again, voting for the health of pregnant women and their babies. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness will have heard the comments from the Lord Privy Seal.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

To take the noble Lord back to the question that was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, has the economic impact assessment been completed or not? If it has been, why do we not have it? If it has not been, surely it should have been informing the Bill itself.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can do no better than say that the impact assessment will be published in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord says, but in any Bill the economic impact assessment—where one is provided, which is not in every case—is only ever one piece of the documentation that is available in support of a Bill. The impact assessment will be published in due course; I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord any more information. I hear what he says, and the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and will take their comments back to the department.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, on 24 May, the Minister said the same thing: that he would take our concerns back to the department. There have been nearly two weeks for the department to reflect and act on our concerns about the economic impact assessment and the child rights impact assessment—which some of us consider to be even more important.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I have nothing to add other than that it will be published in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

If they come from Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq or another country from which their family has fled, are they to be sent back there, where they may or may not have family? Or are they to be sent somewhere else, such as Rwanda? They may not necessarily be of white extraction, but they may not be of the extraction of the country to which they go, and they will not know a single person. When they have been brought up in a happy family in this country—most foster families are happy—I cannot believe that this Government can bring themselves to remove them at the age of 18. That is why I have put these two amendments down and strongly support the others.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 17, spoken to so powerfully by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to which I have added my name; but I support any amendment that serves to take out or restrict the duty/power to remove anyone who arrived as a child—in particular, that tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs.

As the Children’s Commissioner has made clear:

“Children must be able to claim asylum”.


Indeed, it is only last year that the then Minister assured us that

“unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 311.]

and current Home Office guidance sets out in bold:

“Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are not suitable for the inadmissibility processes”.


So will the Minister explain why they are considered suitable now, and on what evidence this policy volte-face is based?

I put my name to Amendment 17 because it gives the Committee the opportunity to consider whether the Bill is compatible with the duty under the UNCRC, enshrined in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration—a crucial issue, which we have touched on already.

Recently, the Government told the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that they remained “fully committed” to upholding the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. That is, of course, welcome, yet the civil society alternative report on the UK’s implementation of the UN convention observed:

“The best interests principle is often applied tokenistically for children in the immigration system, with no evidence of a structured assessment or explanation, and decisions and policies are routinely made that are contrary to children’s well-being”.


The UN Committee, which reported on Friday, noted “with concern” that the best interests principle “is not systematically applied” in all matters affecting children and states that it should be. As the committee goes on observe, this Bill is no exception.

The UN committee’s general comment number 14 on the best interests principle makes it clear that its operation requires certain procedural guarantees and that

“the justification of a decision must show that the right has been explicitly taken into account. In this regard, States parties shall explain how the right has been respected in the decision, that is, what has been considered to be in the child’s best interests; what criteria it is based on; and how the child’s interests have been weighed against other considerations, be they broad issues of policy or individual cases”.

It spells out that

“primary consideration means that the child’s interests have high priority and not just one of several considerations. Therefore a larger weight must be attached to what serves the child best”.

This requires a child rights impact assessment that needs to be built in

“as early as possible in the development of policy”.

Yet here we are, on the second day in Committee, the Bill having already passed through the Commons and Second Reading in the Lords without any such impact assessment and, as I noted earlier, despite the Minister promising the Committee to take the matter back to his department nearly a fortnight ago. Where is it?

If it had been built in as early as possible in the development of the policy, it should have been available at the same time as the Bill was published, with an assessment of the impact on both accompanied and unaccompanied children. Instead, we have what can be described only as a superficial treatment of the best interests question in the equality impact assessment—which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading in the Lords. The bland statement that the best interests duty is

“not the only factor that must be considered and other relevant factors must be taken into account”

is simply not good enough. There is also no provision to assess the best interests of individual children, unaccompanied or accompanied, before the decision is made to deem them inadmissible.

That the duty to remove does not apply until the age of 18 for unaccompanied children, and that the government amendment sets out the main situations in which the power to remove before that age might be used, represent no more than partial and inadequate mitigation. The Children’s Commissioner has made it clear that the government amendment

“does not go far enough. The power could still be used to remove children in ‘other circumstances’ which are not detailed”.

Could the Minister therefore explain what the “other circumstances” are in which the power to remove unaccompanied children might be used? How will it be determined if it is safe for a child to be returned to their home country?

In the supplementary ECHR memorandum, the Government acknowledge that the clause, as amended,

“is likely to engage Article 8 where an unaccompanied child … is not removed for potentially some years … in which time”

they

“may have built some considerable family and/or private life”

in the UK. The fact that the majority may be aged 16 or 17 does not alter that.

I found the justification for such interference with Article 8 quite breathtaking: namely, that it was

“in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society”.

Could the Minister explain how exactly treating children in this appalling way is necessary in a democratic society? This also applies to the duty to remove children once they reach the age of 18. ILPA reminds us that the Court of Appeal has observed:

“It is not easy to see that risks of the relevant kind to a person who is a child would continue until the eve of that [18th] birthday, and cease at once the next day”.


A number of health and social work organisations have drawn attention to the likely impact on a child’s mental, and possibly physical, health of knowing they will be removed once they reach 18. It will undermine their education and any chances of integration. Try and put yourself in the shoes of a child or young person who knows that they are here only on sufferance and that the clock is running down towards their removal. It is no way to live a life at any age, but particularly not your childhood.

The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium notes that, in the past, unaccompanied children were typically

“granted temporary leave to remain until they turned 17½”.

As a consequence, the fear of removal meant that many children disappeared underground

“at extreme risk of exploitation and … danger of self-harm”

and even suicide.

This fear is echoed by the Children’s Commissioner, who has warned that the duty to remove at 18

“will make it incredibly hard to safeguard unaccompanied children, as they will likely go missing rather than be deported, leaving them very vulnerable to exploitation”.

These considerations, especially the dangers of exploitation in this country, based on experience, must surely trump the hypothetical fears used to justify the duty by Ministers—that, otherwise, children will be exploited by smugglers and traffickers. Again, this point was made by the Children’s Commissioner in her opposition to the duty to remove at 18.

According to the Refugee Council’s impact assessment, we could be talking about 13,000 to nearly 15,000 unaccompanied children per year. Let us not forget that, as the Children’s Society reminds us, these are children who are scared and traumatised, and who need security, support and the opportunity to experience their childhoods.

The Immigration Minister tried to reassure MPs that

“all the Ministers involved in the Bill’s preparation have thought very carefully about how we can protect children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/23; col. 837.]

But I am afraid he has failed to reassure the Children’s Commissioner, international human rights organisations, medical and social work organisations and children’s and refugee organisations. He has also failed to reassure the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which has called on the Government to “urgently amend” the Bill to abandon all provisions

“that would have the effect of violating children’s rights under the Convention and the 1951 Refugee Convention”.

Thus, if the Government genuinely want to protect children, they will at the very least accept some of the amendments proposed today and subsequently. But really, they should remove children entirely from the scope of the Bill, as called for by UNICEF.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said, the power will be exercised very exceptionally. I am happy to go away and look into that point, and I will write to the noble Lord on it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I asked a number of questions around the child rights impact assessment. Please do not say that we will get it in due course, because I quoted from the UN committee’s guidance on impact assessments and it was very clear that it should be shaping the policy process from the word go—so it must exist. Why do we not have it? It is good that the Children’s Commissioner is now being involved in discussions, but she complained that she was not consulted prior to the publication of the Bill. Given the impact on children, surely that is grave discourtesy to the Children’s Commissioner.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

From my experience, the Children’s Commissioner was involved, certainly while the Bill was passing through the other place, but I will look further into that point on timings. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is very important that she is engaged with in full in relation to the development of this legislation in so far as my personal view goes. In relation to the point about the child impact assessment, I am afraid that, however much it will disappoint the noble Baroness, I must revert to the usual answer and say that it will be provided in due course—but I of course take away the sentiment that she has evinced.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Frankly, this is unacceptable. Without being rude, I say that the Committee must at some point have the impact assessment. How on earth can we make many of the judgments on amendments and on the various things that we may wish to come forward with on Report if we do not have an impact assessment? It is normal practice for an impact assessment to be provided so that proper decisions can be made. Can the Minister at least go back to the department and say that this Chamber—I think I speak for everyone —is very unhappy that no impact assessment is due, and that we need one? Will he ask his department to provide one for us—at least well before Report?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

To add to that, we should have had a child rights impact assessment. That is supposed to be done right at the outset of the policy discussion. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have been published at the same time as the Bill.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The House knows my position. I have obviously heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have said, and I will of course take those points back to the department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble and learned Baroness makes a very strong case and I give her my full support.

My name is on Amendments 80 and 91 in this group. Amendment 91 is concerned with victims of human trafficking, but both fall at the hurdle of retrospection, as has been explained by the other signatories, in particular, my noble friend Lord Carlile, and by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee. I have the luxury of being able to add virtually nothing to the arguments already made.

I think the best description of the case against retrospection is in my noble and learned friend Lord Hope’s explanation of Amendment 39, which

“seeks to give effect to the principle that, unless for good reason, legislation should operate prospectively and not retrospectively”.

What is the conceivable good reason? What are the very exceptional circumstances that the Constitution Committee suggested might excuse retrospection?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested that the Minister might try to say that stopping the boats is so exceptional as to justify retrospection. But there are a lot of other ways of dealing with that; for example, the safe passage visa argued for at Amendment 130. The Minister might say that that it is the cost of housing those who have come across the channel or in the back of a lorry and have been apprehended. But the costs of detaining and deporting those declared inadmissible under this Bill will be much higher.

That is the point the Refugee Council made in its impact assessment and estimate of the costs. It estimated a cost of £9 billion over the first three years. The Minister says that he does not recognise those numbers. That is not a sufficient argument. He needs to tell us what is wrong with those numbers and what his numbers are. It is not good enough just to sit there and say, “Well, I’m not going to engage in this debate because I don’t recognise the numbers”. I think retrospection is fundamentally unacceptable.

A few years ago, when I was driving up Headington Hill in Oxford, I forgot that, eccentrically, the set speed limit there is 20 miles per hour. I was required to present myself in Milton Keynes four months later for a speed awareness course, because I had been travelling at 27 miles per hour. Eccentrically, because I am a very eccentric person, I failed to ask my wife to see whether I could have a personal course. Nevertheless, I would have been very taken aback if, when I got to Milton Keynes—it was extremely hard to find the place and I was driving rather fast trying to find it—I had been told on arrival, “Actually, we have changed the penalty and we are going to export you to Rwanda”. I would have objected, and I object to retrospection.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far, but I will focus on the opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. This clause is, in many ways, the nub of the asylum ban to which the Bill gives effect. To place a duty on the Home Secretary to remove virtually all those who seek asylum through irregular routes is an unprecedented step going far beyond simply giving her the power to do so. Here we are talking about those arriving not only by boats but by any irregular route; the boats are used as a justification for the Bill, because the Government know that we all want to see an end to those very unsafe journeys. The fact that it is a power only when it comes to children is a small mercy, given that they will be removed when they reach the age of 18. However, I will leave the treatment of children to a later debate, because there is still a lot to be said about the impact on children.

Calling those affected “illegal migrants” does not alter the fact that the majority are exercising their right in international law to seek asylum. That goes back to the point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made earlier. In the words of the UN rapporteurs that I quoted earlier,

“the act of seeking asylum is always legal, and effective access to territory is an essential precondition for exercising the right to seek asylum”.

When she first introduced the Bill, the Home Secretary accused critics of naivety in suggesting that

“everybody coming here on a boat is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing for humanitarian reasons. The reality is that many of these people are economic migrants who are abusing our asylum system, and that is what this Bill aims to stop”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/23; col. 174.]

Could the Minister give us the evidence on which that assertion is based? It has been reported that the Home Office does not have that evidence, but, if it does, now is the opportunity to provide it.

No one is suggesting that everyone who comes here on a small boat has a genuine case for asylum, but we know that the majority are likely to have such a case. According to the Refugee Council’s analysis of official data, six out of 10 of those who crossed the channel in small boats last year stood to be recognised as refugees—yet they will no longer be able to make their case.

The Home Secretary has argued that the Bill’s critics

“ignore the fact that our policy does in fact guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 576.]

However, many of those whom she has given herself a duty to remove will genuinely need humanitarian protection. Yet there will be no mechanism for ascertaining whether that is the case before they are simply removed to be dealt with elsewhere, like a parcel marked “don’t return to sender”. To quote the UN rapporteurs again,

“any steps taken to legalize policies effectively resulting in the removal of migrants without an individualized assessment in line with human rights obligations and due process are squarely incompatible with the prohibition of collective expulsions and the principle of non-refoulement”.

The Government talk as if we take a disproportionate number of asylum seekers, yet the opposite is the case— that point was made earlier today, though it seems a long time ago now. As I asked earlier, what happens if other countries follow our lead and also put up the “no asylum seekers here” sign? The chances are that the numbers seeking asylum in the UK will go up, not down.

In practice, the general view, including that of the Law Society, is that removal of those deemed inadmissible will be very difficult in the absence of adequate third-country agreements, making the Bill, in effect, unworkable. The fear of the Refugee Council, the UNHRC and others is that it will mean many thousands left in semi-permanent limbo, at risk of destitution. As I said at Second Reading, the mental health implications are likely to be serious, as spelled out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which has many concerns about the Bill’s impact on mental health. For those who are removed to a third country, there is no guarantee that the country will be equipped to assess their asylum claim, so again they could be living in limbo, but out of sight and out of mind of the UK Government. How can all this be described as compassionate and humane, as Ministers repeatedly do?

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House for long, especially given the excellent speeches we have already heard delivered on this group, but I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about retrospection. I add my support, in particular, to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and those other noble Lords who have tabled Amendment 11, on which we have already heard the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

A succession of migration, public order and modern slavery Bills in recent years have drastically raised the length of sentences and the severity of punishments that can be brought to bear on people traffickers and smugglers. While this may look tough, it is difficult to say that it has had much impact; indeed, the entire purpose of this Bill is to try to put a stop to arrivals which have not, apparently, been impacted on at all by the deterrents that are already in place. Nor is this surprising, given the very low number of prosecutions and convictions for such offences. Regrettably, it seems that smuggling is a crime with enormous rewards but relatively little risk for the perpetrators. Instead, we seem to almost exclusively punish those who are smuggled, often in highly dangerous circumstances.

We know that securing prosecutions and convictions is incredibly difficult because it requires the willing co-operation of those who have been smuggled. This is no small thing, for they are often traumatised and often in significant debt to the smugglers. They may have friends and family abroad or here in the UK who will be put at risk if they come forward. That difficulty is only exacerbated by our migration enforcement policies, which also deter victims from coming forward for fear of the hostile environment, detention and removal—including potentially to Rwanda or some other third country with which they have no connection. There is little incentive to co-operate with law enforcement, and significant risk in doing so.

My fear is that the Bill as a whole will not improve this situation, but at the very least, Amendment 11 provides a modest mitigation of the damage, without undermining the effect of the Bill overall, by exempting those co-operating with law enforcement from the prospect of removal. I hope that Ministers will listen to this, or at the very least come back with detailed proposals for how victims, both of smuggling and of trafficking, slavery and other forms of abuse, can be better supported to co-operate and help bring down those who have abused them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, I am sorry to say. Clearly the position is not that in every case where there is a change in the criminal law it should have retrospective effect to the date of the Bill’s introduction. That is absolutely not what I am saying. What I am saying is that, in this context, to prevent a rush of people into these dangerous vessels, crossing the channel at a time when there is potentially bad weather, those were the special circumstances that justified retrospection in these provisions. To go back to one of the last major Bills to go through your Lordships’ House, which became the Public Order Act, I would not dream of suggesting that the offence of locking on should have had retrospective effect to the date of the introduction of the Bill; there would have been no exceptional circumstances for that.

While I am on the topic of the speech just given by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I would like to address her suggestion that limited retrospectivity will lead to refoulement. This is clearly not the case. I can do no more than repeat that this Bill does not allow refoulement. It does not allow the Government to remove individuals to places where they will be in danger—and that, quite rightly, is under the supervision of the courts.

In particular, I would refer noble Lords to the clauses in the Bill relating to suspensive claims—Clauses 37 to 50—which allow Upper Tribunal judges to determine whether an individual faces a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”. If such a case is made out, the individual will not be removed to that place.

Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, relates to the third condition and to the issue of whether a person has or has not “come directly” from a country where their life and liberty were threatened. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people arriving through safe and legal routes rather than those who are strong or rich enough to have journeyed through safe countries and paid the people smugglers before they reach the UK.

In answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord German, repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, people seeking sanctuary should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is no uniform international interpretation of the many concepts of the refugee convention. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides the treaty to be interpreted “in good faith”. It is on this basis that we have set out our interpretation of “come directly” through Clause 2. I might add that, were Amendment 7—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

The Minister is beginning to address the question that I have raised twice: why should we accept this Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over and above that of the body that is given authority by the UN to interpret it for the international community? Every other organisation that has briefed us has followed the UNHCR in its interpretation and there are very real fears of refoulement. As a noble Lord opposite said earlier. the reason given seems to be “Because we say so”, as you would say to a child. That is not good enough. We want to know exactly why we should accept the Government’s interpretation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. The reality is that the Government take legal advice. The UNHCR is clearly a UN body; it is not charged with the interpretation of the refugee convention. Some parts of the UNHCR have views on the Government’s position, but it is always worth recalling that the UNHCR itself maintains refugee arrangements and accommodation in Rwanda. In December, the High Court considered the submissions from the UNHCR and discounted what was said. So I invite the noble Baroness, rather than simply taking the Government’s word for it, to review the judgment of the Divisional Court, a careful and considered judgment, which considered the legality of the removal scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the intent is to send a message—that people really must not make these dangerous journeys across the channel. As I say, all the avenues of legal challenge are open but there are only two categories that will suspend removal. There are a number of provisions—I am sure the noble Baroness and I will be debating them at length over the coming days in Committee—and that is how the Bill will have its effect.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Could I ask that the Minister copies everyone who took part in this debate into the letter he is going to send, because it is of interest to many of us?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will certainly place a copy in the Library of the House. I hope that suffices. I am sure that my private office can work out who is here and is participating.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

These amendments are a commitment to the vulnerable and a commitment on the part of states to be held accountable for their actions towards the vulnerable. If the Government cannot commit to that accountability, I cannot accept that the stated purpose of Clause 1 is either appropriate or desirable.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 4 and draw attention to my entry in the register, with regard to support from RAMP for this and later amendments.

It is vital that, in line with our international obligations, we uphold the human rights of men, women and children who seek asylum in the UK. It is worth remembering what Theresa May—no softy when it comes to immigration matters—said in the Commons:

“That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 592.]


Related to this is a warning from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her letter to the Lord Speaker that the Bill, as summarised in Clause 1, would

“provide an incentive to other states, in Europe and beyond, to follow the UK’s lead in evading and abdicating its responsibilities to people in need of protection”.

Given that much of the Bill is justified with reference to incentives, one hopes that this warning might resonate with Ministers. If other countries follow suit, we could well find that we have more, not fewer, asylum seekers trying to cross our borders.

Of the conventions listed, I will focus just on those relating to refugees and children, although I also draw attention to the concerns raised by Redress, which warns that the Bill threatens to cause the UK to violate key provisions of the UN convention against torture. I will not repeat the highly damaging verdict of the UNHCR, other than to note, as did my noble friend, the unprecedented strength of its criticism, reflected in the stark warning that the Bill amounts to an “asylum ban” in contravention of the refugee convention. Every briefing that we have received, including from the EHRC and the Law Society, echoes these concerns about the refugee convention. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and other UN rapporteurs, have urged the Government to halt the Bill’s passage so as to bring it

“in line with international human rights standards”.

However, according to the Home Secretary, such claims are “simply fatuous”. She put forward two arguments in the Commons to justify her position. The first is that while the

“convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK”.

However, the UNHCR explains that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary

“will not be required to assess whether removal”

to a supposedly safe country

“would be safe or reasonable for a particular individual or whether they will be able to claim asylum there. Individuals would have very limited opportunities to present evidence of the risks they would face”.

Thus, it warns that the removal duty placed on the Home Secretary

“creates real and foreseeable risks of refoulement”.

This is echoed by the UN rapporteurs. The proposed responsibility-sharing arrangements lack the required safeguards to protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

Secondly, the Home Secretary prayed in aid Article 31 of the convention which, she argued,

“is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come ‘directly’ from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country”

is, she concluded,

“therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 580.]

However, the UNHCR is clear that it is not consistent. Its legal observations on the Bill are explicit:

“Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt ‘coming directly’”.


As the EHRC points out, because of geography, “direct” routes to the UK are rarely available. Exploiting our geographical position to abdicate responsibility for asylum seekers shames us as a country. I therefore repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading: can the Minister explain why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with supervisory responsibility for it? That body was recently described by another Lords Minister as “a key partner”.

The UNHCR also warns that

“The Bill is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child … because of the many ways it threatens or undermines the safety and welfare of children”.


I will not go into detail here, because a number of amendments specific to children will follow, but it is worth noting now that, in the view of UNICEF, which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to uphold the UNCRC and promote the rights and well-being of every child, children should be removed from the scope of the Bill in order to uphold the Government’s

“duties to act in the best interests of the child”

as set out in the UNCRC. Similarly, the Children’s Commissioner, who has demonstrated a passionate concern about the Bill’s implications for children, has warned that it

“would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of children’s rights treaties”.

The equality impact assessment, which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading, assures us that

“the Home Office will continue to comply”

with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

“to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them”.

As UNICEF reminds us, this duty was enacted in order to implement the UNCRC “best interest” requirement. Yet, the equality impact assessment tries to wriggle out of the duty by arguing that:

“The duty does not mean that it is the only factor that must be considered”.


In effect, it is being treated as a secondary rather than a primary factor, an issue to which I will return in a later group. We still await the child rights impact assessment called for by the Children’s Commissioner as essential to ensure consistency with the best interest requirements. It was promised “in due course” in a Written Answer on 17 May, so where is it?

Relevant here too is the position of the devolved nations. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has warned that the Bill could contravene the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and Windsor Framework in a number of ways. Has the Minister read its critique, and will the Government be publishing a response to it? The Welsh Civil Society Forum points out that Wales’s “child first, migrant second” approach, in line with its incorporation with the UNCRC, risks being undermined. As the Constitution Committee points out in its critical report on the Bill, while

“international relations are reserved matters … observing and implementing international obligations are devolved”.

What is the view of the devolved legislatures?

In conclusion, we must take note of what national and international human rights bodies are saying about this Bill. To echo a point made by other noble Lords, if the Government genuinely believe that the Bill meets the obligations in the conventions listed in the amendment, why not accept it now? Refusal to do so will only reinforce the belief of the UNHRC and others that this Bill marks the abrogation of the UK’s global responsibilities.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I would happily support all the amendments, although I would prefer Amendment 4, which I think expresses it more accurately, perhaps, than the others. I only really want to make one point because so many points have been made with which I entirely agree and they are almost unanimous across the Committee, as perhaps the Committee is noticing. We heard from other speakers that the Prime Minister put his name to that convention or treaty earlier in Reykjavik in which he is supporting international conventions. The Minister in the other place spoke about caring about international conventions. The question I want to ask the Minister is: looking at this Bill, looking at how it has been pulled apart in Clause 1, does the Minister really feel able to say that the Government care at all about international obligations?

Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

That this House regrets that the Short-term Holding Facility (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/1345) remove important safeguards and reduce the standards for the lawful detention beyond 24 hours of migrants, including children and vulnerable adults, at the immigration detention facility in Manston, Kent; that the Home Office has not consulted on these changes nor provided an adequate policy justification for them; and that this potentially contentious legislation was brought into effect while the House was in recess.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the wording of this regret Motion is taken in large part from the highly critical report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which draws the rules to the special attention of the House. Its report reflects the grave concerns expressed in a joint submission from Medical Justice, Freedom from Torture, Bail for Immigration Detainees, Rainbow Migration, JRS UK, the Helen Bamber Foundation, and Detention Action. I am grateful to Medical Justice and Freedom from Torture for their help with this Motion, and refer to the register for support from RAMP.

By way of background, a short-term holding facility is a type of immigration detention centre governed by legal rules that regulate the amenities and services that different types of facility must provide. There are two types: residential STHFs, and non-residential “holding rooms”. Normal maximum detention times are five days in the former and 24 hours in the latter. These rules create a new category called “residential holding room” which is now being applied to the Manston facility, a non-residential holding room, which attracted considerable criticism recently for its dreadful conditions and unlawful operation. Residents of RHRs will be detained for a normal maximum of four days, extendable in “exceptional circumstances”. Exceptional circumstances are not defined, but in its written response to the SLSC’s questions, the Home Office gave us an example: “unexpected and very large numbers of small boat arrivals”. Could the Minister tell us what would constitute an unexpected and very large number, given that the Government give the impression that large numbers are far from exceptional or unexpected at certain times of the year? Can he explain why there are no absolute time limits, as with residential STHFs?

Criticisms of the rules in the SLSC report and the joint submission concern both their substance and the process of their introduction. The joint submission draws attention to how the safeguards applied in existing residential short-term facilities are being “dramatically downgraded”, and standards regarding healthcare, communications, sleeping accommodation and access to legal advice are being reduced.

Modifications to Rules 32 and 30 mean that detainees with particular vulnerabilities and at risk of harm, who are especially likely to suffer damage from detention, are less likely to be identified. This includes torture or trafficking victims, and those experiencing suicidal ideation and other serious mental health conditions. Yet the existing statutory guidance on adults at risk recognises the need to ensure that vulnerable people are not detained inappropriately. The amended Rule 32 does not, for example, include a reporting mechanism for those with evidence of torture, so there will be no process for identifying and safeguarding this highly vulnerable group. The amended Rule 30 changes the deadline for medical screening from within two to 24 hours of admission, and even that can be lengthened in “exceptional circumstances”—again, that is not defined, but the same example of unexpected and large numbers of boat arrivals has been provided.

Examples of reductions in the standards applied in residential STHFs include the absence of a firm requirement for separate sleeping accommodation for people of the opposite sex, and for minors or families to be in sleeping accommodation that is inaccessible to unrelated detained persons. Others reduced rights to communication: can the Minister clarify whether those held in an RHR will be permitted face-to-face visits, such as from external organisations? If so, will any restrictions be placed on who may visit? Of particular importance is the ability to meet a legal adviser; can the Minister confirm that RHRs will make provision for legal advice and representation, including the right to face-to-face meetings?

The SLSC underlines that:

“The overall effect … is that the facilities and amenities available to people who may be detained for four days are materially lower than those deemed necessary for people who may be detained for five days”.


The committee was not impressed by the Home Office’s response to its question as to why this was appropriate. Unlike the Home Office, it does not consider the appropriate comparison to be with the rules applying to non-residential holding rooms. Given that this is a new category of residential holding facility, the committee is surely right to make the comparison with other short-term residential facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course; I entirely accept that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has spoken, all of whom I think have deepened the arguments and reminded noble Lords what is at stake here. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out the Government’s case. I suspect he did not manage to answer all the questions, so I would be very grateful if he could look through Hansard and write to everybody who spoke in answer to those questions.

Rwanda: Memorandum of Understanding

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to the register and my support from RAMP. One reason why the MoU is such an important political issue, as agreed by the committee and the Government, and also a moral issue, is the widespread fear about the implications for children wrongly assessed as adults. I welcome the assurance in a Written Answer that

“no one undergoing an age assessment, or legally challenging the outcome of an assessment, will be relocated until that process is fully concluded”,

but I am advised that where the child has been assessed as an adult at the border, even if they subsequently challenge that assessment, they may still be issued with a notice of intent, which can create acute anxiety, especially as they have only seven days to respond. Can the Minister say whether that advice is correct?

Given the many procedural errors identified in the High Court Rwanda judgment and the chief inspector’s comment that the age-assessment process for those arriving by small boats was “perfunctory”, how can we have confidence that unaccompanied children who do not understand the age-assessment process or have no legal support will not be wrongly issued with a notice of intent? Can the Minister explain why, when we have been told that no decision has yet been taken as to whether families with children might be relocated, Care 4 Calais reports that 42, or one-fifth, of its clients issued with a notice of intent since last August have children?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I appreciate the hypothetical question that my noble friend asks. As I say, the issue was one for the Statements that were provided to the House of Commons, and it seems that there was no want of scrutiny. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not accept that contention.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he was not able to answer all the questions asked. Will he please write to noble Lords with the answers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes, certainly; we will have a look through them.

National Security Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

So I say to the Minister: why here, why now and why the hurry? This can be dealt with with the complete co-operation of your Lordships’ House, but not in the way it is being done. I urge the Government not to wait for Report but to take some executive decisions right now and say that what we should do is concentrate on what really matters, the true national security part of the Bill. Let us get that enacted with minimal amendment and with the co-operation of the whole of your Lordships’ House, wherever we come from politically or not, as the case may be. Let us go back to the drawing board and produce real architectural planning for a FIR scheme if it is to reach wider.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for popping up at this point, not having taken part in the debates so far, but I was requested to do so by the British Academy, the UK’s national academy of humanities and social sciences, of which I am proud to be a fellow. I am also an academic who has in the past collaborated with colleagues from outside the UK in the area of social policy, which of course is trying to influence government.

I am sure I do not need to spell out the importance of international research collaboration, which was touched on by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, especially in the wake of the Science Minister’s speech last week which emphasised the importance of the Government’s global science strategy. Any such strategy requires international collaboration. The British Academy accepts that mechanisms to prevent foreign interference are necessary, but such mechanisms must safeguard the benefits of international research and protect academic freedom. It is worth just noting here what the Joint Committee on Human Rights had to say. It was concerned that this was introduced at such a late stage of the Bill’s passage that it could not comment properly on it, but it said:

“Any foreign influence registration scheme must contain adequate protections to ensure that it does not interfere unduly with democratic rights, including freedom of association and free speech.”


I think everything we have heard so today, other than from the Minister, suggests that it could interfere in that way.

Indeed, the British Academy argues that such mechanisms exist already and that FIRS would duplicate them in a way that creates totally unnecessary bureaucracy, which surely this Government, of all Governments, want to avoid. It is not helped by the lack of clarity in the wording, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, with details left for secondary legislation. The effect, the British Academy argues, would be a significant negative impact on the ability of UK researchers to engage internationally, creating irreversible harm to the UK’s research and innovation standing. The academy is not prone to hyperbole.

As currently drafted, as we have heard, FIRS would entangle wide swathes of international activities and is likely to have a chilling effect on international collaboration, not just deterring those with malign intent—as referred to by the Minister—but probably having a much greater impact on those with utterly benign intent. I cannot believe for a moment that this is what the Government want, especially given that it would undermine their own aspirations to forge a global science strategy.

It is in the Government’s own interest to accept the British Academy’s recommendation that they withdraw Part 3—I think I am echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said—and consult with it and other relevant organisations to cocreate a framework that is proportionate and reasonable, taking into account existing reporting and oversight mechanisms. The academy argues that research and innovation should be largely excluded from FIRS. Is this something that the Government are willing to consider? If not, why not? Will the Minister agree to take this away, have discussions with the British Academy and others and, ideally, withdraw Part 3 altogether as has been suggested or, at the very least, come up with something less harmful before Report? I am echoing other noble Lords in calling for a longer pause than currently envisaged. The more I have listened to today’s debate, the more horrified I have become at what this part of the Bill might mean.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 103, and I declare my interests as set out in the register.

Like the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Lister, I am new to the Bill and have been provoked by briefings. Like others who have spoken today, I emphasise that I am absolutely no fan of this foreign influence registration scheme, which is far too broad in its application, as we have heard. I think it will be highly damaging to UK research and development, inward investment and British interests around the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, listed those who might get caught up in the scheme, and clearly very few of those have any connection at all with national security. I am delighted to support many amendments in this group and, in particular, the clause stand part notices that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wallace have spoken to so cogently.

This has given us the opportunity to debate the flawed nature of the whole scheme. I will make some remarks about the impact on business and investment, which my noble friend Lord Fox would have made were he able to be here. We have heard powerful testimony from the British Academy, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and from the Russell group, referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about the hugely detrimental potential impact of the Bill on the international research and development front. The British Academy rightly says that international collaboration is critical to the excellence of UK research and the Government’s aim to become a scientific and global science superpower. As it says, as currently drafted the FIRS will have a severely negative impact on the UK’s ability to engage with researchers internationally and on the ability of researchers in the humanities and social sciences to engage on critical public policy topics, and it will irrevocably harm the UK’s research and innovation standing. Strong words.

Under the scheme as currently proposed, at minimum, research universities will be smothered in red tape and, at worst, heavy criminal penalties in undertaking international research partnerships will be imposed. Bluntly, I must tell the Minister that his amendments add very little to the clarity of this scheme. The Minister’s letter about the intersection with the National Security and Investment Act, which we debated in 2021, was far from convincing. There is already a raft of other legislation relating to the academic technology approval scheme and export control, which impact on a university’s international activities. If this scheme, by mischance, does go through, it makes Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace, the absolute bare minimum needed. Both the Russell group and the British Academy make the case for clarity, non-duplication, proportionality and a high threshold for registration, none of which is currently present in the scheme.

A further cause for withdrawal of this scheme is the strong reaction from the business and investment community. That is why this stand part debate is so important. The ABI states very clearly that the current proposal for the FIRS

“risks placing significant reporting burden on insurers and long-term savings providers investing in the UK, with the potential to negatively impact the UK’s international competitiveness and attractiveness as a place to invest”.

TheCityUK says these proposals

“if passed unamended would have a chilling effect on inward investment into the UK”.

Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Accommodation

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

In view of the recent report on PoliticsHome of an asylum-seeking family left in mould-ridden accommodation, and the claim of a local charity that the standard of Home Office asylum-seeker accommodation is often “squalid and unsanitary”, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that all such accommodation meets basic standards of decency?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. Obviously, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute can obtain support, including accommodation, under Section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There is a requirement under Section 96 of that Act that such accommodation should be adequate to the needs of the supported person and their dependants. The courts held in the case of AMA v the Secretary of State last year that a hotel room met the threshold of adequacy, despite the nature of the accommodation being far from ideal. Clearly, it is important that all accommodation provided is adequate and meets the needs of those within it. The department is responsive to complaints of inadequate accommodation; it is a priority for the department to ensure that accommodation is appropriately delivered to those who need it.