Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Bishop of Durham

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I again note my interests as laid out in the register. I will speak to Amendment 162. In Committee, I explained the well-intentioned nature of this amendment and hoped it would have afforded the Minister the opportunity to clarify that any cap placed on safe and legal routes would exclude current named schemes already in operation. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. He said:

“The cap will not automatically apply to all current and new safe and legal routes that we offer or will introduce in the future.”—[Official Report, 4/6/23; col. 1980.]


But, with respect, how can local authorities reflect on accommodation provision for new routes without excluding their current commitments from this assessment?

“Safe and legal routes” is not a term that is tightly defined in the Bill, so we are left, as is now unfortunately commonplace, with regulations in this area. Arguably, however, it is not unreasonable for Members to presume that “safe and legal routes” would be for those seeking protection outside existing visa schemes who would be granted refugee status. Therefore, why are the Government leaving the possibility that those who are not granted refugee status could be included within the cap? This applies to schemes such as Homes for Ukraine, which requires a visa—the people in question are not refugees—Hong Kong BNO visas, which are actually for overseas citizens, and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which is in recognition of all that happened in Afghanistan. As my noble friend Lady Brinton put it to the Minister in Committee, those from Hong Kong are actually British citizens. I thank the Minister for the meeting that he held with me and her on that specific question.

We still have no credible evidence on the deterrence impacts of this Bill, but we know that offering accessible and safe routes will help prevent people having to make the agonising decision to travel irregularly to reach sanctuary. However, by including current schemes in the proposed cap, we will severely restrict our ability to implement any such safe routes, as there would be limited room, if any, for additional routes. Over the first quarter of this year, 22,000 Ukrainians and British nationals from Hong Kong were resettled here. If we had a cap of 20,000 and those 22,000 were included, we would have a problem. It is to the Government’s credit that these 22,000 have come, but it cannot be used as a justification to abdicate our responsibility to do more across a wider global cohort.

If we do not provide safe routes to those who have had no choice but to uproot their lives to seek safety, we are choosing to require them to rely on dangerous journeys. Perversely, this will create a market for those smugglers determined to capitalise on others’ suffering.

The child’s rights impact assessment states:

“Anybody arriving in the UK through the methods specified in the bill presents a risk to the public due to the very nature of their arrival”.


I put it to the Minister that the vast majority do not pose a risk to our country; what is at risk is their lives. That is why they have fled. I therefore welcome that the Prime Minister has promised that the Government will create more safe and legal routes. This amendment will enable the Government to do only what they have set out to do. Without it, I fear this vital and necessary work will stop before it has even started and the world’s most vulnerable will pay the price.

I wonder whether using the word “person” in Clause 59(1) is unhelpful here and whether it should say “asylum seeker and refugee” instead. Would the Minister consider bringing that back at Third Reading? Beyond Amendment 162, I support the other safe and legal routes proposed here, in particular that in Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for adding their names to my Amendment 164. I also lend my support to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 162, which he has just outlined, and to Amendment 163 in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton.

I brought a variation of this amendment to the House in Committee. As I said in that debate, it is very simple. Amendment 164 is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what they say they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. As I said in that debate, the moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the creation of more safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are creating legal and safe routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission which this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.

In the previous debate, the Minister said that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and to implement them “as soon as practicable” and

“in any event by the end of 2024”.—[Official Report, 14/6/23; col. 1982.]

I am grateful to him for making this commitment. My primary motive in bringing this amendment back is to ensure that this commitment from the Government is enacted and that the commitment made from the Dispatch Box to enact safe and legal routes is in the Bill and carries as much weight as the commitment to disestablish unsafe and illegal routes.

I have heard commitments to policy positions from the Dispatch Box which have not been fulfilled and, while I have the greatest respect for the Minister, legislative certainty is what this House needs. I am particularly concerned by the promises made about the establishment of safe and legal routes at an indeterminate point after the next general election.

This brings me to the timeframe which has been introduced to this revised version of the amendment. We have chosen the timeline of two months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for two reasons. First, this will be eight months— I repeat, eight months—after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal. Secondly, it will ensure that the commitment, as set out in legislation, should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. If the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline into the legislation, I would welcome that conversation, but we do need to put the duty into the legislation now.

I was grateful for a conversation with the Immigration Minister in the other place, when he assured me that the Government would consider the importance of clearly demonstrating that they are committed to fulfilling their word on safe and legal routes. To restate: this is something the Government actively want to do, and for that reason I will want to test the will of the House this afternoon.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Bishop of Durham

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope due to Covid, I will be moving Amendment 35 in his name.

It is disappointing that the concerns expressed by many noble Lords in Committee have gone unheeded and the practical questions that were posed are yet to be answered. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope is a former immigration Minister, who speaks with authority on this matter. Many years ago, after carefully examining this policy of offshoring, he rejected the proposal to offshore asylum seekers on the basis that it was impractical and ineffective. The reasons that he did so still apply today.

There is still too much that we do not know about this policy, even at this late stage. How would the powers given be used by the Government? Whose legal system would be used to assess asylum seekers that we have offshored—Britain’s or the third country’s? Once assessed, would these asylum seekers be returned to the UK? How would the Government exercise their safeguarding responsibility for families thousands of miles out of UK jurisdiction? How much would each case cost? The numbers from Australia suggest up to £2 million per year just to keep one person who is in need out of this country.

All this fails to fit in with our legal and international obligations, let alone our constitutional principles. Today, we see this clearly, more clearly even than when we were discussing it last time, through the events in Ukraine. This tragic and unnecessary unfolding humanitarian crisis will certainly play out through the European continent. Many refugees fleeing Ukraine may well attempt to come to the UK. Last Saturday evening, the Prime Minister clearly stated that we would welcome refugees from Ukraine here. By Sunday, that commitment had become that we would support refugees in neighbouring countries to Ukraine. Today, we can see that the approach has moved again and that the Government are committed to expanding their family visa scheme and introducing a new community sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians, both of which are significant and welcome steps.

However, are we still saying that every other Ukrainian refugee who reaches these shores would fall into tier-2 status, have no recourse to public funds and be subject to potential offshoring? How would this work practically? How are we going to apply an operation that would be, at the best of times, excruciatingly complex to execute on a potentially huge scale? Of course, there is the irony of people seeking safety only to find themselves in a position of renewed vulnerability, potentially held indefinitely in detention abroad. Instead of designing a structure that draws a proper distinction between economic and humanitarian motivations for migrants trying to reach our shores, it seems that the Government are muddying the water and resorting to this extraordinary measure of offshoring.

As we have learned more about the realities of life in the Australian processing centres, many noble Lords have become increasingly concerned by the reports of what children have been forced to endure. The Nauru files—a cache of more than 2,000 leaked incident reports from the detention centre on Nauru—highlight hundreds of reports of neglect, violence and abuse against children in the detention centre, often by guards. I cannot fathom a situation where the UK would tolerate the mistreatment of children, but in the absence of explicit protections and the rule of our own legal system, we have to assume that any scenario is possible.

In conclusion, this proposal is deeply concerning and unworkable on numerous levels. The powers it would grant our Government are on the one hand ill-defined and on the other far-reaching. They are potentially hugely expensive and yet ineffective, exposing vulnerable people to further trauma rather than offering protection.

As great as these concerns are, I have one further concern: what does this policy make us? This is our moment as an independent nation that can demonstrate western liberal values at a moment when they are under attack—values of democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech, yes, but also the value and dignity of every human being. We all believe in taking back control, but if there is one lesson to learn from Australia’s experience, it is this: any country that chooses to outsource its constitutional responsibilities compromises its control. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, in rising to support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, to which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset and set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the way she introduced this amendment, and I fully support all her points.

I set out my reasons for supporting this amendment in Committee. However, a significant concern for me now is that the Minister was not able to give assurance that children in families would be excluded from offshoring, nor that families would not be split up in the process. This is deeply concerning. I appreciate that the policy document of 25 February sets out that exemptions will depend on the country where people are being offshored and tat publicising exemptions will fuel the movement of the most vulnerable not subject to offshoring.

However, I would set out that, for children, onward movement to any country after an often traumatic journey to the UK, in addition to the trauma in their country of origin, is simply never in their best interests. All the concerns I set out in my Committee speech regarding the monitoring of the practice of offshoring processing centres are especially true for children.

The Home Office has processes to confirm identity and actual family relationships, which it uses for a range of visas as well as in the asylum process. It would seem that, if this is the concern, there are ways to avoid children being used in this way. Given the deep harm that offshoring would do to everyone, particularly children, I fail to see why the Minister cannot give this commitment.

I am deeply concerned that throughout the Bill, where we have highlighted the deep harm of policies on the most vulnerable, we are told that guidance and discretion can be applied on a case-by-case basis. I understand the logic of that, but what worries me is that it does not speak of any standardised process where everyone can be confident that there is equal treatment.

I further ask whether an economic assessment of the costs of offshoring has been properly made, and, if so, what the outcome of that assessment has been—and if it has not, why not? I ask these questions while fully supporting the need to remove this clause of the Bill in its entirety.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Bishop of Durham

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, in rising to support Amendments 100 and 101, to which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both the RAMP project and Reset, as set out in the register.

When people arrive on our shores seeking protection, we have a responsibility to treat them as we would wish to be treated if we had to flee for our lives. It is right that we have a process to determine who meets the criteria for refugee status, but while we determine this, we are responsible for people’s safety, welfare and care. If we move them to other countries for the processing of their asylum claims, I fear a blind eye will be turned to their treatment. How will we be sure that they are being treated humanely and fairly, and would our Government even give this much concern once they had left our shores? If we look to the experience of Australia and the refugees accommodated in Nauru, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, has just mentioned, we hear deeply shocking accounts of abuse, inhumane treatment and mental and physical ill-health.

As mentioned in relation to an earlier amendment, I visited Napier barracks last week to see improvements that have been made since the exposure of the disgraceful conditions at the beginning of last year. If what we have seen at Napier is permitted to happen in the UK, what can we expect overseas, where accountability and monitoring will be so much harder? The monitoring of asylum accommodation contractors in the UK is poor, which gives us some idea about the level of monitoring we could expect of offshore processing.

What standard will be set for offshore accommodation? Will it be detention? How can UK safeguards be enforced in another country? Will there be a maximum period of stay? Minister Tom Pursglove stated in the Public Bill Committee that

“we intend their claims to be admitted and processed under the third country’s asylum system.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 397.]

This is deeply concerning. These asylum seekers are the UK’s responsibility; they came to us to ask for protection, and we cannot simply wash our hands of them. What will be the acceptable standards of a country’s asylum system for us to discharge refugee determination to them? Can the Minister confirm that, if an individual is granted asylum offshore, they will be granted any form of leave in the UK and readmitted?

We had assurance in the other place from Minister Tom Pursglove that unaccompanied children will not be included in offshoring, but will children in families be offshored? If not, can the Minister assure us that families will not be split up in this process? We need to see any such commitments written into the Bill. I also want reassurance from the Minister that offshore agreements will not be linked to international aid agreements. This would be wrong, so can she give us that reassurance?

Offshoring would be a huge cost to the taxpayer. Can the Minister tell us what work has been done on the costs? Have such costs been endorsed by HM Treasury?

The financial cost is not the only one: there would be a significant cost to our international standing. Are we so keen to tarnish our reputation as a country where human rights are upheld for this inhumane policy, rather than one that is rooted in what will actually work to reduce the need for people to have to use criminal gangs? We will discuss these policy proposals in future debates.

People seeking asylum have arrived on our shores, seeking UK protection. We are responsible for them. It is not a responsibility we can pass over to others. The potential for standards and safeguards to drop is a very serious risk, with the challenges of monitoring and accountability at distance. They would far too easily become forgotten people. Offshoring must simply be ruled out of order.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I too support Amendment 100, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, to which I have been pleased to add my name. I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.

The question of offshore detention is undoubtedly one of the most controversial aspects of this Bill, which is designed to stem the flow of small boats from France. The stated objective of this policy is one of deterrence, but opponents of the policy have rightly been asking: at what cost?

Before we look at the issue of offshoring, I will take a moment to look at and think about the sorts of journeys taken by those fleeing violence and war. Asylum seekers are frequently exposed to intolerable levels of risk as they travel. Irregular migrants face dangerous journeys: they are unprotected, they accumulate debt, and they have no legal recourse. The limited opportunities for legal migration force individuals to use people smugglers where there is a risk of being trafficked. Asylum seekers who fall prey to human traffickers can be exploited in both transit and destination countries. During the asylum seeker’s journey, the fine line with human trafficking—the acquisition of people by force, fraud or deception with the aim of exploiting them—can be easily crossed.

Just imagine you go through all that and end up on these shores. It has taken your savings and months of your life to arrive here from, say, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. On arrival on our shores, we greet you and, before we have even assessed whether or not you are a refugee, put you on a plane and take you back to the continent from which you came. That action alone could kill someone, but my question is also: what does that make us?

Before I set out my reason for asking the Home Secretary to think again about the use of offshore detention and processing, whether in Rwanda, Ghana or Ascension Island, as we have heard, I will return to the point I made last Tuesday. The best hope of a fair, just and affordable solution to the issue of the Calais boats still lies with a diplomatic solution with the French and EU nations. Will my noble friend the Minister comment on the Telegraph story on Wednesday about the French President’s apparent openness to a deal over channel crossings? As I have suggested a number of times, a returns agreement with the French is likely to be the only viable way to stop the crossings. I imagine this taking the form of an agreement that those who have crossed here irregularly are sent back to be assessed in France; in return, we commit to taking a certain number from Calais. This is a win-win solution that would genuinely destroy the economic model of the people smugglers, would cost less and would be far more humane.

Could my noble friend the Minister also provide an estimate of the cost of offshore processing? A cursory glance shows that a room at the Ritz costs between £650 and £700 a night. Extrapolate that and one finds that it costs around £250,000 to stay at the Ritz for a year. The estimates of what the Australians pay for one asylum seeker held in detention vary from that amount to eight times that. How can that be justified?

It is not only the cost that concerns me. Can the Minister provide reassurance that no children will be sent offshore and that women who are vulnerable to sexual violence will receive proper protections? The concerning stories that emerge from processing camps in other countries should give us pause for thought before we embark down this road. When there are other potential diplomatic avenues that the Government are yet to properly consider, offshoring looks like an oversized hammer being used to crack a nut, with the potential for corrupting our character as a nation and our international reputation, and increasing racial tensions domestically and the administrative burden and cost to the state. I urge the Minister to think again and for this House to give the other place an opportunity to think again.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Bishop of Durham

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was in his place earlier but has had to go elsewhere for the evening. He has asked me to speak on his behalf on the amendments in this group tabled in his name alongside those of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I thank the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s for their support and helpful briefings.

The Church has a particular concern for vulnerable children. As far as the Church of England is concerned, there are 4,644 schools in which we educate around 1 million students. This educational commitment is combined with parish and youth worker activities that bring the Church into contact with thousands of families each year. Through the Clewer Initiative, many parishes and dioceses have worked closely on the issues of county lines and confronting the blight of modern slavery. Accordingly, we have seen at first hand and, sadly, all too frequently the terrible damage caused by serious youth violence and by the criminal exploitation of children. The latter is an especially insidious form of abuse, which one victim has described as “when someone you trusted makes you commit crime for their benefit”.

Amendment 50, as we have heard, seeks to create a definition of child criminal exploitation that would sit alongside other definitions of exploitation already in the Modern Slavery Act. The present lack of a single statutory definition means that local agencies are responding differently to this form of exploitation across the country. Research by the Children’s Society in 2019 found that only one-third of local authorities had a policy in place for responding to it. By its very nature, exploitation through county lines crosses local authority boundaries, so it is imperative that there is a national shared understanding of child criminal exploitation so that children do not fall through the gaps if they live in one area but are exploited in another. A consequence of the current lack of a shared definition and approach is that many children receive punitive criminal justice responses rather than being seen as victims of exploitation and abuse.

Youth justice data shows that in 2019-20, 1,402 children were first-time entrants to the youth justice system due to drug offences, with 2,063 being first-time entrants due to weapon offences. Both issues are often associated with criminal exploitation through the county lines drug model. Despite positive work from several police forces and the CPS, many criminal cases are still being pursued against a child even when they have been identified as a victim of criminal exploitation.

Relatedly, too many children are coming to the attention of services only when they are arrested by police for drugs-related crimes, as early warning signs are not understood or are simply missed. We too often find that not all professionals involved in children’s lives fully understand this form of exploitation and how vulnerabilities manifest in children. There are countless serious case reviews that point to safeguarding interventions not being made earlier enough in the grooming process.

A statutory definition agreed and understood by all local safeguarding partners would enable professionals to spot the signs earlier and divert vulnerable children away from harm, in much the same way as the recently adopted statutory definition of domestic abuse is now helping to improve responses on that issue. I am sure that every Member of this House shares the desire to protect vulnerable children. Adopting this definition would send a strong message to those children that their abuse is seen, heard and understood.

This also leads me briefly to address Amendments 21, 23 to 27, 42 and 43, which would amend the serious violence duty. Concern with the serious violence duty, as presented here, is about a lack of clear commitment to the safeguarding of children. No differentiation is drawn between how this duty impacts on children as opposed to adults.

Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response. Being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. It is important to understand these underlying causes of why children may be involved in violence, and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within certain areas to be addressed. We need to intervene to protect and divert children, not treating them as adult criminals. This requires a co-ordinated approach to preventative safeguarding which focuses on offering support to a child and family through targeted or universal services at the first signs of issues in their lives to prevent them being coerced into activity associated with serious violence.

Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies, and in any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. The duty as currently drafted does not mention “safeguarding” once, nor does it signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area. A failure to write into the duty the need to safeguard children risks young people falling through the cracks in statutory support and receiving a punitive response from statutory services. It makes the duty all about crime reduction at the expense of safeguarding. It would also hinder the ability of the duty to be truly preventative if it did not specify the involvement of children’s services.

I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister on the commitment to safeguarding, ideally on the face of the Bill, but certainly a commitment that the issue of how the duty relates to safeguarding will be more closely considered in guidance.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 50 and 52, which seek to create a statutory definition for child criminal exploitation and provide training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence.

The intention of these amendments is to ensure that those who first encounter victims—most often, police officers on a child’s arrest—know what they are looking for and are prepared to respond to signs of child criminal exploitation and secure the intervention and support for children who are being exploited.

This amendment could well be needed to ensure that we no longer allow our most vulnerable children to slip through the cracks and end up in a cycle of exploitation, violence and criminality. I was particularly struck by a story published by the Children’s Society in which a child was repeatedly exploited to transport drugs and weapons, and his mother threatened by older youths when he failed to provide money to those coercing him into criminal activity. He was known to his youth offending team, but the extent of the ways in which he had been exploited did not become manifest until his tragic murder in January 2019. His story is just one of thousands.

The Children’s Commissioner has estimated that at least 27,000 children in the UK are currently at serious risk of gang exploitation. The national referral mechanism has begun to recognise the weight of this criminal exploitation as a form of modern slavery, and 2,749 of the 4,964 child victims that it encountered in 2020 had been subject to child criminal exploitation. However, only a minority of exploited victims ever reach the national referral mechanism. These amendments are designed to probe whether we need a clear definition and understanding of criminal exploitation, and training which equips local authorities to intervene and protect children from it.

It is important that we recognise that when a child is being exploited, first and foremost, as we have heard this evening, they are a victim. According to an FOI request by Barnardo’s, only one of 47 local policing departments responded with existing awareness and a strategy for combating child criminal exploitation, leaving 29 which had no approach and 17 which were unresponsive.

Without awareness of child criminal exploitation and a policy in place for its detection and eradication, children are arrested as criminals and enter the criminal justice system with no assistance against the coercion that they face. This often results in their continued exploitation on release and a perpetuated cycle of coerced reoffending.

Abortion (Disability Equality) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Stroud and Lord Bishop of Durham

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 27th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome and support the amendment. At Second Reading I made two points. First, the Bill removes discrimination from our legislation, as set out in Section l(l)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967. Secondly, the Bill’s crucial objective is to address what takes place in the consulting room. A significant number of parents say that they feel very real pressure to have an abortion when what they want is support. The noble Baroness’s amendment addresses that issue. I thank her and congratulate her on her amendment.

In 2015, 929 abortions [see Official Report, 30/1/17; col. 967.] were undertaken in England and Wales after 24 weeks under ground E. There may well be a need for additional support for parents should any of these children be carried to term in the future, rather than terminated within the 24-week timeframe, so this is a welcome addition to a very important Bill. But welcome though it is, it should not be argued that this causes a financial exposure for the Government. The Government are already required to provide for all these families, regardless of the choice they make. Having worked with the Treasury over a number of years, I know the danger is that it could view this as a financial exposure, which is not appropriate for a Private Member’s Bill. My point is that we already have responsibility for these families in caring for them and supporting them in any way and with any choice they make. I welcome the amendment, with that caveat.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I was unable to be present at Second Reading but my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol spoke on this matter, welcoming the Bill, and I add my support. I also welcome the amendment because I believe that, as others have already said, such a review would be very helpful.

One reason has just been demonstrated, although the noble Baroness would not have known this at the time; that is, the figure she quoted for the number of abortions that took place in this category after 24 weeks is different from the one that I have been supplied with. That said, the number is not hugely different. The point is that a relatively small number of abortions take place in category E after 24 weeks. If I understand it correctly, the noble Baroness’s amendment would apply not just after the 24-week period but to the Act as a whole. That review would be very welcome because we do not know exactly what is going on.

The Bill is primarily about the rights of the disabled. It is really important that we move to recognising that if we believe viability is at 24 weeks, it is 24 weeks for all foetuses and none should be excluded from that. That is why I support the Bill as a whole.