Public Order Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and I hope she gives way to my Front-Bench colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in due course.

I have been listening carefully to the Home Secretary. In the context of this cost of living emergency, the Government are threatening anti-trade union legislation and pursuing voter suppression through voter ID, and draconian anti-protest laws are now being brought in. Will the Home Secretary come clean and admit that this Government know that their economic policies will be increasingly unpopular, so they want to remove everyone’s right to resist and fight back, whether through voting, industrial action or peaceful protest?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman indicated to me that he would like to speak in the debate, and that he would like to speak not at the end of the debate. He has just made half of his speech, which puts me in rather a difficult position, and I hope everyone else will remember that. Interventions are good for debate, but they must be short.

[Priti Patel]

Let me put the hon. Gentleman’s remarks into context. First and foremost, the right to protest is part of the freedom and democracy that we all cherish in our country, and no one should interfere with that right at all. But I suggest to all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—some of them write to me frequently to complain about the removal of criminals, foreign national offenders and so forth—that the types of protest specific to the Bill are those where a significant amount of disruption has been caused. He speaks about economic policies, the cost of living and costs to taxpayers. The protests around High Speed 2 have led to an estimated cost of £122 million. Policing Extinction Rebellion protests between April and October 2019 cost the public purse £37 million. The “Just Stop Oil” protests—as Essex Members of Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will appreciate this, along with our constituents—left Essex police alone with costs of £4.6 million. That is resource from the frontline that is used elsewhere. That resource could be used to protect our communities. That is why these measures are so important.

We all passionately believe in causes. The hon. Gentleman and others on both sides of the House speak with passion on a range of causes—we in this House are advocates and representatives of the people—but we do not make policy as a country through mob rule, or disruption in the way in which we have seen. No democracy can do that. No democracy needs to do that. The protesters involved in the examples that I presented have better, alternative routes to make their voices heard, and they know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that protests are noisy, and that in this Chamber we are also noisy when we are protesting or disagreeing during a debate? When the Prime Minister enters the Chamber, Government Members cheer as though they were at a football match—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. This should be an intervention, not a speech. The hon. Lady should not be reading an intervention. Interventions should be so short that Members do not have to read them. If she has something brief that she wants to say to the shadow Home Secretary, she may do so.

[Janet Daby]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to recognise that noise has a way of releasing tension so that people can get their point across and be heard and recognised?

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

A retrospective clause might affect not only the right hon. Gentleman but the Prime Minister —not that the Prime Minister has much of a record of taking seriously offences that he has committed or their consequences.

The problem with the Bill is that not only does it not respect the principles in respect of defending historic freedoms to protest, but nor does it contain sensible measures to safeguard national infrastructure. The Bill does not recognise the powers that the police and courts already have and the need to ensure that they can be used effectively; nor does it address some of the key changes currently faced by the police and authorities. The Bill does not include an effective strategy to avoid disruption to essential services, and there is clear evidence that some of its measures just will not work. At the same time, the Bill does not safeguard historic freedoms to protest—quite the opposite: it undermines those freedoms and targets peaceful protesters and passers-by instead.

Let me look at the proposals in more detail. The police and courts already have a range of powers that they can use in the minority of cases that involve serious disruption or criminal activity. They include powers in respect of wilful obstruction of a highway; criminal damage; aggrieved trespass; public nuisance; breach of the peace; breach of conditions on processions and static protests; harassment; threatening, abusive and disorderly behaviour; trespassory assemblies; preventing others going about their lawful business; and injunctions.

If someone blocks the road outside an oil refinery, they are already covered by the offence of wilful obstruction of a highway. If someone vandalises tankers, they are already committing criminal damage, which is an offence. Indeed, that is why more than 100 people have so far been charged by Kent police and Essex police as a result of Insulate Britain offences, and why the independent report on protests by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services recognised that there were different views, even among police officers, about whether more powers were needed.

I have heard from police officers—including the chief constables and former chief constables of forces that have dealt with protests over many years—both about problems that the Bill does not deal with at all and about their concerns about the Bill’s extension of the powers that they already have, which they say are sufficient. One officer told the inspectorate that

“the powers are sufficient; it is the ability to implement them that is the challenge due to lack of resources”.

There are challenges for the police if they deal with people who are determined to break the law repeatedly and are not deterred by the fact there are offences, but police also referred to concerns that sometimes even when offences had been committed there was no enforcement by the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts because of

“substantial backlogs in court”

and

“so much time passing since the alleged offence that the CPS deemed prosecution to be no longer in the public interest”.

The Bill addresses none of those issues. The inspectorate also raised concerns about lack of training, guidance and co-ordination among forces and authorities—issues that we raised in Parliament when we discussed this issue last year but that the Government dismissed.

We have heard from officers who have said that the most effective measures that they use in the face of potentially serious disruption and problems are injunctions, but the problem is the delays involved in public and private authorities getting injunctions in place. The advantage of injunctions is that they can be targeted at the problem. They often come with much swifter enforcement processes than individual offences, with the courts taking them seriously and escalating penalties. Not only can they act as a deterrent but, crucially, they include judicial oversight, which ensures that powers are not misused. Yet we have heard from police officers frustrated by the slow response from private and public authorities that have the ability to seek such injunctions, but instead leave the responsibility to tackle disruption to the police rather than taking greater responsibility themselves. Police chiefs, too, have been frustrated by the fragmented institutional response; there are so many different private contractors and organisations involved that no one takes responsibility.

If the Government were serious about the resilience of our vital infrastructure, they would have much more effective partnerships in place to make sure that companies act and co-operate, and that everyone understood their shared responsibilities. They would make sure that they understood the right to peaceful protest and the responsibility to safeguard essential infrastructure, and could get injunctions in place fast. They would be working to get the capacity, training and guidance in place that the police and the authorities need.

Instead of all of that—instead of those common-sense approaches—the Government have chosen to widen hugely powers on stop and search and on banning orders, which will affect both peaceful protesters and passers-by. Stop and search powers are hugely important as a way of preventing crime, but they can also be very intrusive and humiliating powers, which, if used in the wrong way, can be counterproductive and undermine legitimacy and trust in policing. Rightly, they are designed to be used to prevent the most serious crime—knife crime and drug dealing—and the police themselves have recognised serious concerns about disproportionality and about those who are black being much more likely to be stopped and searched than those who are white. Those powers should be used sensibly and not as a political football.

The police already have the power to stop and search someone who they believe has equipment that could be used for criminal damage, but the Government want to widen that to cover anything linked to a public order offence, including public nuisance and serious annoyance. We should ask the Government what that includes. They believe that noisy protests are a public nuisance, but does that include stopping and searching for a boombox or even for a tambourine? We concede that tambourines can be annoying, but could that be covered by the stop and search powers? That would allow the police to stop and search people not because they suspect them of being involved in a protest but simply because they are passing by an area where a protest is likely to be held.

What would that mean? Let us imagine that police expect an angry protest in a town centre by local residents who are furious that their local library is about to close. Those local residents’ singing and shouting would undoubtedly be a serious annoyance to those who are studying or using the library and reading quietly. Under the Government’s new rules, they could easily be covered by public order offences. In response, a local police inspector could designate the town centre a section 60 area and stop and search not only peaceful protesters but passers-by.

Let us think, too, about what that means for Parliament Square, where there are protests all the time and sometimes, people go too far and commit public order offences and the police rightly have to step in. But the offences that can be used to justify a section 60 stop and search order in this Bill are really broad and now include noisy protests that cause public nuisance and serious annoyance. I have an office that overlooks Parliament Square and I can say that there is definitely noise, loud music and serious annoyance every Wednesday before and after Prime Minister’s questions. With gritted teeth, I defend their right to be seriously annoying but the Government do not, so, again, under this Bill, a police inspector could designate Parliament Square every Wednesday and stop and search MPs, our staff and civil servants on their way to work, and also tourists and passers-by. Does the Home Secretary really think that we should all be stopped and searched every time the Prime Minister comes to Parliament? It sounds totally ludicrous, but that is what this Bill does.

The Government also want to be able to apply serious disruption prevention orders to people who have never been convicted of a crime. They want to be able to restrict where someone goes, who they meet and how they use the internet, even if they contributed only in some broad way to people causing disruption to two or more people. Again, the Government are extending powers that we would normally make available just for serious violence and terrorism to peaceful protest. Police officers themselves have said that this is,

“a severe restriction on a person’s rights to protest and in reality, is unworkable”.

[Interruption.] The Minister for Crime and Policing says that they have not, but that is what it says in the inspectorate’s report.

The inspectorate also said, that it agreed with the view shared by many senior police officers. It said that

“however many safeguards might be put in place, a banning order would completely remove an individual’s right to attend a protest. It is difficult to envisage a case where less intrusive measures could not be taken to address the risk”.

The inspectorate’s report also said:

“This proposal essentially takes away a person’s right to protest and…we believe it unlikely the measure would work as hoped.”

The Policing Minister is right: that is the view not of a police officer, but of the Home Office, which was submitted to the inspectorate.

There is an alternative approach for the Government: to work sensibly with the police, local authorities and those who run public and private infrastructure; to support the right to peaceful protest; to work together to safeguard essential infrastructure; to review the measures that they have just introduced before coming back for more; to work on training, guidance and resources that public order teams need; to work on streamlined plans for injunctions that could protect the smooth running of essential infrastructure if needed; to work in partnership with essential services such as the NHS and not just with oil and gas supplies; to accept that protests that this Government find seriously annoying are a vital part of our democracy; and, ultimately, to drop this Bill.

The Government should use this time to bring in a victims’ Bill that could increase the rape prosecution rate; that could provide more support for victims of crime; and that could take more action to get dangerous criminals behind bars or more community penalties to prevent repeat offending by first-time offenders. Instead of wasting time stopping and searching people outside a library protest, they should do something to tackle the serious antisocial behaviour and rising crime across the country; do the job of a Home Secretary instead of grandstanding and making headlines; and do the proper, practical work of keeping our communities safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I hope that we will manage this afternoon’s debate without a formal time limit, but that will depend on everyone taking less than eight minutes. I am sure that that can be achieved. It will be a much better flowing debate if we do not have a time limit, so I trust Members not to abuse the privilege of having the Floor.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

As is seen week after week, my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster tends to be the epicentre of political protest in this country. That is hardly surprising, as it is home to the Government, to Parliament and to the UK’s financial heart in the City of London.

I am sure that many hon. and right hon. Members can imagine that the effective management of protests, particularly the most disruptive, is of interest to my constituents. They have first-hand experience of having to negotiate their daily lives with the rights of others to protest.

In the hundreds of letters and emails that I have received from constituents highlighting the disruption that they have suffered during the days and weeks of organised protests, not one has called for the right to protest to be curbed. When it comes to public order, it is especially important to ask ourselves why the measures outlined in this Bill are proper and necessary. What has been made clear to me by both the Metropolitan police and the City of London police is that existing legislation has not kept pace with the evolving tactics of modern-day protesters.

Specifically, the lack of a lock-on offence makes it almost impossible for the police to balance lawful protest and basic civil rights. Provisions in this Bill will change that. Clauses 1 and 2 will allow police pre-emptively to stop highly disruptive, and in some cases dangerous, lock-ons. Clause 1 is of particular importance, as it will make locking on an offence where such an act,

“causes, or is capable of causing, serious disruption”.

That is absolutely right. We have seen individuals glue themselves to vehicles or use lock-on devices on the public highway.

Last August, those tactics were used on Tower Bridge by protestors who brought parts of Central London to a standstill for hours. Protestors have encased their arms in tubes filled with concrete and locked themselves to makeshift structures at huge heights. We have even seen reports of protesters inserting nails and blades into those pipes in an effort to make removing them more difficult and dangerous for our police officers.

We cannot overlook the very real concerns of thousands of ordinary people who are disrupted by demonstrations that go well beyond what is necessary. I utterly disagree with the suggestion that just because we agree with a cause, the disruptive activity is right. It is not. Protest tactics using lock-on devices are not just inconvenient for many, but can have real-life consequences—emergency vehicles unable to attend 999 calls, missed hospital appointments or someone unable to get to a dying loved one to say goodbye.

It also frustrates me and many of my constituents that police officers involved in policing those protests are taken away from policing their neighbourhoods and concentrating on their local policing priorities. It is not just Westminster and City of London police officers being taken away from their daily duties. During a number of major days-long protests, I have seen officers from the home counties and Bedfordshire policing central London. I have even come across police vans in Covent Garden with the word “Heddlu” on them, which is Welsh for police.

Removing lock-on devices safely requires specialist policing teams to be deployed in what can be high-risk environments, which takes time and significant resources. Just one protest group, Extinction Rebellion, had a total of 54 days of protest between 2019 and 2021, costing some £1.2 million a day. I therefore welcome clause 2, which would allow officers to act on reasonable suspicion that satisfies visual and intelligence-based qualifications to prevent the use of highly dangerous lock-ons.

Since the publication of the Bill, I have listened to the argument that the offence is not necessary, and that the offences of wilful obstruction of the highway and aggravated trespass cover these actions. To an extent, that is true. However, they are only applicable after assembly of the structure, by which point we will have seen a chain of events that will ultimately lead to serious impositions on the surrounding area, businesses and local people.

The sticking point in the Lords on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was provisions specifically relating to noise or limiting freedom of expression. I recognise that, and I accept that, for this kind of legislation, we need to reach an agreement that satisfies both this and the other place. However, I stress that clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill are absolutely necessary to rebalance lawful protest and civil rights. After all, in non-violent protests, the duty of the police is to take a balanced and impartial approach towards all those involved in or affected by the protest—an approach that is consistent with both human rights law and domestic legislation. We must ensure that both lawful protest and everyday life can continue without the basic rights being infringed in respect of either. I believe that the Public Order Bill does exactly that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call SNP spokesman Anne McLaughlin.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We are not under huge time constraints today, which is unusual, so I will not put a time limit on. We will leave it up to people to judge for themselves how long they should speak, but I should just give an indication that 10 minutes is usually the maximum for a Back-Bench speech for all sorts of reasons that I do not need to explain to anyone who feels the atmosphere of this Chamber.

[Kit Malthouse]

She’s talking about you, Lloyd.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Mine is shorter, but I will extend it now. [Laughter.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not normally have heckling on this point. [Laughter.] It’s all right. The hon. Gentlemen on both sides are forgiven. It is nice and lively.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5D.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to consider:

Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 7F and 7G, and Government motion to disagree.

[Tom Pursglove]

I hope that this will be the final time in these proceedings around the Nationality and Borders Bill. I will first turn to compliance with the refugee convention. All measures in this Bill are compatible with our obligations under international law. We therefore cannot accept this amendment, which would put our duty to comply with the refugee convention on the face of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Last week, the Home Secretary told the House that our asylum system is “broken”. Yesterday, her Minister, who is sitting before us today, again stated clearly that our asylum system is “broken”. We on the Labour Benches completely agree, but what Conservative Members seem to continually miss is the fact that the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years. The problem is that they never stand up and take responsibility; they always try to blame others—the civil service, the courts and even the media. It was revealed this week that the Home Secretary banned the Financial Times, The Guardian and the Mirror from the press delegation accompanying her to Rwanda. That was a truly Orwellian move—cancel culture at its worst.

The truth is that, with every decision this Government make and every ill-conceived scheme they put in place, they make fixing our broken asylum system ever harder. The first of these failures is on the asylum waiting lists. Under this Home Secretary, the Home Office is processing 50% fewer cases than five years ago—the result: 37,000 asylum seekers languishing in expensive hotels, costing the taxpayer an eye-watering £4.7 million per day. Labour would invest to save by increasing the number of caseworkers and decision makers so that processing times and hotel bills are radically reduced. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Come on, let us have a bit of reasonable behaviour. I appreciate that it is late, but it is simply rude to shout to such an extent that we cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. It is not reasonable. There is nothing wrong with a bit of banter, but it should not be at such a level that I cannot hear him.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is in this context that we are supporting Lords amendment 7F today, which would give the 60,000 asylum seekers on waiting lists the right to work, to be reviewed after two years, thereby reducing the burden on the British taxpayer and boosting the Exchequer.

Secondly, during his negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister completely failed to replace the Dublin III regulation, which means that we can no longer return refugees to the country in the EU where they would have first sought asylum. Numbers have increased because this Conservative Government lost control of our borders by losing our long-held power to send people back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

We have made it absolutely clear that the plan is going to fail, as the Home Office’s top civil servant said, so the question will not arise. We will not need to deal with it; the wheels will fall off the bus. We certainly would not be spending £120 million on a press release.

The Rwanda offloading plan is not only a grotesquely expensive gimmick that is unlikely to deter people smugglers in the long-term, but deeply un-British. Dumping this challenge on a developing country 4,000 miles away, with a questionable record on human rights, raises serious concerns about whether this legislation complies with the UN refugee convention. That is why we will back Lords amendment 5D.

Another deeply un-British part of the Bill was the idea that the rubber dinghies could be pushed back out to sea. Yesterday, we witnessed the Home Secretary’s latest screeching U-turn—this time reversing a particularly unhinged part of the legislation. The Home Secretary’s pushback policy was almost completely unworkable, as she was told by the Border Force, by the French, by the Ministry of Defence and even by her own lawyers. As we learned from court documents published yesterday, she had actually agreed that pushbacks could not be applied to asylum seekers in the channel, but she tried to keep that secret so that she could keep up the bravado and tough talking. We hope that she will correct the record.

I have already pointed out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I want to let the House calm down for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced and efficient Member of this House, will know that he should not be making a general speech at this stage; this is not Second Reading. This debate is very narrow: we are discussing only the amendments that have just come back from the Lords, not general issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now stick to the narrow matter before us—and so will everybody else.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Thank you for your wise counsel, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I have already pointed to the work and refugee convention amendments, but we also need to address differential treatment. Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F provide that a person can be a tier 1 refugee if they have travelled briefly through countries on their way to the UK, as somebody from Kabul or Kyiv would have to, or if they have delayed presenting themselves to the authorities for a good reason. They would also require compliance with the refugee convention and state that family unity must be taken into account. The Government should get behind the amendments. What in them can there possibly be to disagree with?

The channel crossings have been taken out of the Home Secretary’s hands and handed to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. The Ukrainian refugee scheme has been handed over to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This Sunday, the former director general of borders and immigration called for a new immigration Department to remove responsibility from the Home Office. With her Department now effectively in special measures, will the Home Secretary not just for once do the right thing and accept the amendments today, so that we can begin to repair some of the damage done by this deeply counterproductive legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will start by recalling that what we are debating this evening is the fate of Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans, persecuted Christians, trafficking victims and others who seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.

A rather perplexing set of votes in the other place means that we are down to just three Lords amendments. While the remaining amendments may be small in number, however, they are huge in significance. Assuming that this place fails to do its duty by agreeing to them, I hope the other place, unlike the Minister, will do its duty by continuing to insist on them.

With the exception of some welcome provisions on nationality, we continue to believe the whole Bill should be scrapped. However, for as long as it is before us, we support amendments that seek to ensure as far as possible that the Government act in accordance with the refugee convention and allow that compliance to be considered by the courts. That means accepting their lordships’ amendments on interpretation and on restricting the offensive clauses on differentiation.

The Government have totally lost the argument. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion, as well as that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is on our side of this argument. No one with an ounce of common sense would just accept this Government’s assurances that everything accords with the refugee convention, nor would they give up the ability to test it in court—and we certainly should not. Today, it seems that the Minister’s argument is basically that it is Parliament’s role just to declare itself in compliance with the refugee convention. Of course that is absolute nonsense.

I reiterate SNP support for the right to work for asylum seekers, and pay tribute to the Lift the Ban coalition members, including in particular the Maryhill Integration Network and many others who have campaigned with passion and integrity on this issue. This policy is the right thing to do for integration, it is right for the public purse and therefore it is right for our citizens and overwhelmingly right for asylum seekers.

The evidence against the policy remains pathetically weak to non-existent, and warm words about deciding cases within six months mean nothing when that prospect appears as remote as ever. The reality is that people are being left in limbo for years, and excluding them from the labour market for years risks effectively excluding them from work forever and undermining integration.

The Home Secretary has repeatedly told us that she is all for safe legal routes. Indeed, last week she told my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Parliament, that this Bill

“actually puts safe and legal routes into statute.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 41.]

The Home Secretary has complained on various occasions that I have not read the Bill, but I am beginning to question whether she has read her own Bill, because that is clearly utter baloney. There is not a single sentence in the Bill as it stands that puts a safe legal route into statute. On the contrary, clause 11 empowers the Secretary of State to diminish safe routes for family members. Their Lordships’ amendments give just a little bit of protection for those rights.

The final argument I want to make relates, believe it or not, to the 2019 Conservative party election manifesto. In advance of this debate, I forced myself to look at that document; indeed, I forced an unfortunate member of my staff to look at it as well. As far as we can see, the words “asylum” and “refugee” feature in that manifesto only once, and in the following terms:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

The manifesto also said:

“We will ensure no matter where in the world you or your family come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”

This Bill not only breaches the refugee convention, but is utterly contrary to the 2019 Government manifesto. There is nothing in that manifesto about driving a coach and horses through the refugee convention. There is nothing about criminalising—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I stopped the shadow Minister, so I have to give the same advice to the spokesman for the SNP. We are not here to talk about manifestos and general matters this evening; we are here to talk about Government motions to disagree to amendments 5D, 6D, 6E, 6F, 7F and 7G, and only that. This Bill has been properly heard in general terms. We will stick to the exact points in front of us now.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The point I am trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I would be allowed, is that these amendments would bring the Government much closer to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto commitments than anything in the Bill today. The Bill rides roughshod not only over the refugee convention but over the Government’s own manifesto commitments. That is the point I am trying to make. It is an important point for this House, for the Conservative party and for this Government. It is also an important point for Members in the other place, because, yes, this is a Bill that breaches international law in egregious ways, and totally undermines the refugee convention and treats asylum seekers appallingly, but it is also, as I said, contrary to the Conservative manifesto. For that reason, if this is not the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be using its modest powers to delay, then I really do not know what is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments passed earlier today. It is clear that, even today, Members of the Lords have made efforts to table new text to find a route to conclude debate on this Bill. Let us remind ourselves that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that the Bill undermines the 1951 refugee convention and that its policies would risk the lives and wellbeing of vulnerable people.

I wish to support, in particular, Lords amendment 5D, moved by Baroness Chakrabarti, who has worked tirelessly in her opposition in tabling significant amendments to this horrendous Bill. This amendment sets out that the provisions of this part of the Bill must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention.

I express my concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with our international obligations, particularly following the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between the Home Secretary and the Rwandan Government. Senior legal representatives have commented on that agreement, including Stephanie Boyce, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, who recently said that there are

“serious questions about whether these plans would or could comply with the UK’s promises under international treaty”.

We all know that the Government’s proposal of pushbacks of boats in the channel has been abandoned this week in the face of legal scrutiny in the courts. I put on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union—the trade union of Home Office staff, including Border Force staff—and the charities Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom from Torture for taking on this legal challenge. As PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka, a fellow Welsh person, said:

“This humiliating climbdown by the government is a stunning victory for Home Office workers and for refugees. There is little doubt that lives have been saved.”

This action has demonstrated that the Government’s bluster about a legal basis for the pushback policy was just that. Are we now meant to take at the Home Secretary’s word that the “New Plan for Immigration” and the horrendous, inhuman, unethical Rwanda policy are just as legally watertight? Forgive me if I am sceptical.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Will the hon. Lady please stick to addressing the Lords amendments?

[Beth Winter]

I remain totally opposed to this Bill. These proposals are deeply—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is opposed to the Bill, and she was perfectly entitled to say so on Second Reading and on Third Reading, and I think she probably did, but at this point, her opposition to the Bill is of no interest to the House; we are talking about the specific amendments. Will she please stick to the specific amendments?

[Beth Winter]

I therefore urge Members of this House to back the Lords amendments tonight.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 53C and 53D disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Conversations should not be loud while we are having Divisions. You can whisper quietly and pretend to be polite, but speaking at the top of your voice so that nobody else can be heard is simply rude and impolite, and you should not do it in the Chamber.

After Clause 37

Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 13B disagreed to, and Commons disagreement with Lords amendment 15 insisted on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we come to the next Division, I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the No Lobby are not working—it must be assumed that they are overstrained this evening—so the Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in that Lobby. In the No Lobby only, the Clerks will be there to record Members’ names on paper. I am sorry about this and hope that Members remember how to vote by nodding to the Clerk. In the Aye Lobby, matters will continue as normal with the card readers.

Clause 40

Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendment 20B disagreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Before we continue with the business, I apologise for the delay that has occurred in the No Lobby due to the breakdown in the electronic system. I had asked for the electronic system to be fixed, but unfortunately, because there have been so many Divisions in quick succession, the engineers have not been able to do whatever they have to do to fix the system. I then attempted to go back to the old system, where we have Clerks ticking off names on bits of paper. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, no, I apologise—there might be some enthusiasm for that system among those who were voting in the other Lobby, but not from those who have told me about the shambolic effect in the No Lobby. I have therefore decided to attempt to go back to what we were doing earlier today—the electronic system. There are two electronic readers, rather than four, working in the No Lobby, but it appears that that will be faster than having people with bits of paper, so we will now revert to the electronic system in the No Lobby. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Members for their forbearance—that is, if we have any further Divisions.

Clause 62

Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25B.—(Tom Pursglove.)

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman has made his intervention, so I am going to try to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Members should not make interventions when they are sitting down—end of story.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me answer the intervention the hon. Gentleman made while he was standing up. As I said in response to the original intervention, other than what we heard from the politician who gave evidence to us, all the impartial expert evidence was that offshoring achieved absolutely nothing; it was not anything to do with a decline in the number of drownings. The second point to make, in relation to Scottish local authorities, is exactly the same point as has been made by the Conservative party leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council: the Home Office does not step up to its responsibilities because it does not fund local authorities to undertake this work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak. I will try to manage without a formal time limit because it is not normal to have one at this stage of dealing with Lords amendments, but I will introduce a time limit if we cannot have a bit of discipline. If everyone speaks for around four minutes, all colleagues will have a chance to speak, so let us try to do it without a formal time limit.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Unlike the Opposition, I take the view that this Bill is a serious attempt to deal with an almost intractable problem. Nobody should challenge that point. Nevertheless, we are a great nation, and our greatness rests on the fact that we take a moral stance on most things. That is not a formula for softness but it is an argument for rigour in what we do. Lord Kirkhope’s amendment 9 strips out the Government’s plans to create an offshore asylum-processing system, and I believe he is right. Asylum offshoring would be a moral, economic and practical failure. Previous international experience shows that to introduce it here would be an unmitigated disaster.

The first problem with offshoring is an ethical one. To get a sense of the issue, we have only to look at what happened in Australia when it adopted the same approach in 2013. It meant that children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors could be detained offshore. The Refugee Council of Australia has documented gut-wrenching stories of sexual, physical and mental abuse in the processing facilities. A 14-year-old girl who was held offshore for five years doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. Another child starved themselves near to death and had to be removed back to Australia.

Those were not isolated cases. In fact, there have been numerous reports of assaults and sexual abuse relating to Australia’s processing facility on Nauru. Between January and October 2015 alone—just a few months—there were 48 reports of assault and 57 reports of assault against a minor. That is what we appear to be trying to copy. We cannot risk creating a similar situation here. I ask the House to remember what happened to the views of migration around Europe when we saw the body of a drowned child on a Turkish beach. That is what would happen if such stories started to come out of a British offshoring facility.

The second problem with offshoring is its staggering cost. Australia ended up spending over £1 million per person detained offshore—around £4.3 billion for 3,127 asylum seekers. That is 25 times higher per head than what we spend now. We would expect to have many more applicants than Australia had. Last year alone we had 50,000 applicants. Despite what was said earlier, the Australians have learned the lesson. They have wound down their policy, shut down their processing centre in Papua New Guinea and have not sent any new asylum seekers there since 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. My plea for Members to limit themselves to four-minute speeches simply has not worked. I point out to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who intervened just now, that I consider that she has now made her contribution, because there is not enough time for everybody to get into the debate. We will now have a formal four-minute limit. I call Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Disraeli observed:

“How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.”

Many of the amendments put forward by the Lords are carelessly critical. They are veiled, as these things so often are, in a thin covering of assumed moral superiority, but surely it is not moral to oppose a Bill that tries to make the asylum system fit for purpose. Surely it is not ethical to conflate illegal immigration with the immigration of those people who diligently seek to come to this country lawfully and to surmount the hurdles we put in their path, and who, having done so, take pride in making the contribution mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

Refugees from Ukraine

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As the House knows, we have an important statement at 3.30 pm. It would be expedient and good management if we finished this debate at 3.29 pm. There is not too much pressure. If everybody makes a speech of between seven and eight minutes, which is quite a long time, we will achieve that, and it would be courteous to the House if that were to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We are not doing very well on the seven to eight minutes, so let us try a little bit harder—for around seven minutes. I call Huw Merriman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

I truly wish that it were a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). May I ask him to look at Hansard? I have already congratulated the staff in the Home Office hub, and in fact I took them on a tour last night because I thought they needed a break.

I think we all stand with Ukraine, and the one thing that we all want is for more Ukrainian people who are fleeing from the terrible atrocities and war in their country to be able to come here. The Home Office system is designed to keep people out; it cannot suddenly swing round and let lots of people in. It could if it chose to waive visas, but I do not think that that is going to happen.

I am sure that the Immigration Minister will welcome yet another update from me on the case that we have been working on together. My constituent is still in Warsaw, waiting for his visa to be printed and waiting to be told to go and collect it. His sister-in-law has now arrived there from Lviv. Because she applied later than him—he began his application on 12 February—he thinks that she will probably arrive here before him; or rather not before him, because he is a UK national, but before his wife and her daughters.

I am now going to speak for a few moments in my capacity as the Westminster Scottish National party spokesperson on disabilities. I have written to the Foreign Secretary asking for her help. The European Disability Forum has estimated that 2.7 million disabled people currently live in Ukraine, and they are disproportionately impacted by war and emergencies. They find it hard to gain access to medication, accessible transport and infrastructure, care, equipment and mobility aids, which creates barriers for them.

The regional governor in Kyiv, Oleksiy Kuleba, has raised concerns about the evacuation of people from hospitals, particularly those who have additional needs or require essential access to medication. I know that the admission of children with cancer to this country has been expedited, but there are many more folk who need help. As I have said before, in Westminster Hall, it is vital for the UK to take cognisance of article 11 of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) talked about aid for foreign countries; we need to target aid more specifically at those with disabilities, and I hope that the Minister will say something about that today.

More generally, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales wrote a joint letter to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to agree that their countries will take part in the UK-wide scheme and to ask that folk be moved further and faster. They want to be super-sponsors, but I do not believe they have yet had an answer to their letter. I urge Ministers to provide a response.

I am conscious of time, so I will not speak for too much longer. The Refugee Council has said that the UK is not as welcoming to Ukrainian refugees as the EU countries are—the UK has to waive the visa requirement. The British Red Cross agrees that the quickest way of fixing the problems in the system would be to remove the requirement for a visa, which has been done elsewhere. According to the Disasters Emergency Committee, the most recent arrivals to countries surrounding Ukraine have few family ties, have nowhere to go and are deeply traumatised.

The number of lone children crossing the border is rising. I do not think anyone in this House disagrees with the need to safeguard children but, as a simple woman from Wishaw, I would say the best way to safeguard children is to get them here, and to get them here as quickly as possible.

I know that the Scottish Minister with responsibility for refugees, Neil Gray MSP, has been talking to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster). The people who stayed in Ukraine, in the hope of remaining in their own area, are now left with no alternative but to flee with very little.

I spoke at length in Westminster Hall about the bureaucracy and difficulty of applying for a visa. How can anyone fleeing for their life be expected to apply online for entry into the UK? I strongly appeal to both Ministers to get something done that actually improves the UK’s figures. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said that Sweden has taken fewer folk than the UK, but Sweden is a country of 10 million people and, at the last count, the UK has more than 60 million people. [Interruption.] I am sorry if I have that wrong, but I will not get into a battle on this. I am just asking the Ministers, please review your systems. I know Home Office staff are working hard, and I appreciate how hard they are working, but they are working against a system that is designed to keep people out. Do something about that. Waiving visas is easiest, so think about it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I know the hon. Lady did not mean to address the Ministers directly, so we will just pretend that she did it correctly.

An unusual thing has happened: two Members who had indicated that they wanted to speak are not here and are not going to speak. We can therefore go back to around eight to nine minutes. I am sorry to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), both of whom were very brief, but such brevity is now not absolutely required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will be checked, but I related the figures on resettled refugees and listed the numbers. It is on BBC Reality Check, and nothing is incorrect. If there is, BBC Reality Check is incorrect.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

There is clearly a disagreement here, which is why we are having a debate. Debates are about disagreement. This has been a polite debate so far, so let us keep it that way.

This is obviously not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. The hon. and learned Lady has done so, too, and I have a feeling she will do so again. If there is a disagreement, I hope she might take an intervention because it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Joanna Cherry]

If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had taken interventions during his speech, we could have clarified it then. The key words are “per capita,” which mean “per head.” As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East will set out those figures in her speech.

The single biggest thing the UK Government could do to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of Ukrainian refugees would be to permit visa-free access to the United Kingdom, in the same way that our near neighbours such as Ireland and, indeed, all the member states of the European Union are doing. It seems to me that there are two reasons for the refusal to do this, and neither is tenable. The first is alleged concerns about security, and the second is dogma, by which I mean this Government are thrawnly clinging to their anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker policies despite all the evidence that they are untenable because of the new order in Europe ushered in by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We debated these matters in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the Government’s security concerns are unfounded according to such a distinguished expert as Lord Peter Ricketts. Sadly, the Minister failed to address my point and instead resorted to a cheap and unfounded attack on the record of City of Edinburgh Council, and indeed my constituents, in rehousing people fleeing other war zones, particularly Syria and Afghanistan.

Fortunately, today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight and, if he is able, to explain why his Government are pleading security risks against free access, despite expert evidence that such risks as might exist are small and can be managed safely without visas.

I pray in aid Lord Peter Ricketts, who is of course a former National Security Adviser. He spoke about these matters in the other place last week, and he was interviewed by Mark D’Arcy for “Today in Parliament.” He said:

“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk.”

However, as these refugees are mainly women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. The UK Government therefore should not require visas, and they should do the security checks once the women and children are here. We have heard other speakers, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), explain how that could be done.

Lord Peter Ricketts thinks we can do it, the European Union can do it and Ireland can do it, why cannot the United Kingdom? The Minister did not answer that question in Westminster Hall on Monday. He tried to deflect attention from his failure to answer that crucial question by attacking the record of local authorities in Scotland, including City of Edinburgh Council, which covers my constituency of Edinburgh South West. As so often with him, his attacks were unfounded in fact.

Let me take this opportunity to put the Minister right. The people of Scotland and our capital city of Edinburgh stand ready to welcome refugees from Ukraine, as we have always done. We have already heard about the generous offer from the Scottish Government. Since 2015, City of Edinburgh Council has resettled 585 Syrian refugees, the majority by the council but two households by Refugee Sponsorship Edinburgh, including a number of my constituents with whom I worked to get that sponsorship scheme off the ground. Those refugees have been supported by local partners such as the Welcoming Association in my constituency.

Since the fiasco of the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, City of Edinburgh Council has accepted more than 200 Afghan refugees. City of Edinburgh Council has produced a plan to increase the number of refugees it takes each year. In fact, looking again at per capita, which means per head—

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, do I have time to take an intervention?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Yes.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Do you know what? I think I won’t—I’ll just carry on. [Laughter.] Thanks for that.

I want to come to my final concern. Having served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, I am well aware of this Government’s attitude to refugees. I am well aware that, as I said, they are being dragged kicking and screaming. Look at the warm words we heard for the Afghans who were fleeing; eight months later, most of them are still in those hotel rooms. Let us imagine the Ukrainians who come now being stuck in hotel rooms. We may think, “Fine, we know it’s not going to happen, because they’ve said it’s not going to happen,” but why is it happening to the Afghans? What about the people who are hiding in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran who we promised to help? There are 102 people in touch with my office and I have nothing to tell them. And what of all the other countries?

In the 1940s, my grandmother, Sadie Purdie, lived with my granda, Stuart, and, at the time, three children, in a flat in Greenock. They had one bedroom, one kitchen living room and one dovecot. There were five of them squeezed in, along with three pet rabbits. Her brother, his wife and their five children were sleeping in an unheated wartime Nissan hut, along with many other homeless families, and life was unbearable, so my granny insisted that they move in with her. So there were four adults, eight children and three rabbits in a two-room flat with a dovecot and an outside toilet. It is unimaginable, is it not? But do you know why she did that, Madam Deputy Speaker? It was because she needed to—because they needed her. The way she saw it, they could simply budge up. Why can we not do that? As we have heard, Wales and Scotland want to become super sponsors. Let us budge up and create room. We are a wealthy country and people need our help wherever they are coming from—and they need it soon, before something worse happens to them.

Let me finish by saying to the people who are opening their homes that it is wonderful that they are doing that but I want them to read up on the Nationality and Borders Bill. When they invite someone into their home, they will be emotionally invested in that person, whose trauma they will witness close-up. I want them to imagine that person, or someone just like them, arriving here after the Nationality and Borders Bill is enacted—if this Government get their way—and what being subjected to that law means. It means being offshored. It means being jailed. It means never being reunited with their husbands who are currently fighting for their country. I say to those people: rise up, protest and tell this Government, “Not in our name.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This will take one minute and 30 seconds. It is important that the public realise that sometimes, when the House is not packed, it is not because it is not interested in what is happening. Today, there are Ukrainian MPs in the Palace, and hundreds of MPs have gone to see them. The last debate was very important and well attended, and those speaking in it made their constructive points in a very sensible way. We should, though, make the public aware that there were other things going on in the House at the same time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am happy to give him a direct answer. First, I agree with him entirely. It was noted earlier this afternoon that although we were having an extremely important and topical debate about Ukrainian refugees, the Benches were sparsely occupied. It is important to note—the hon. Gentleman put this very well—that in another room at that very moment, there were four Ukrainian Members of Parliament, who are most welcome here. Many colleagues, rather than being in the Chamber, had gone to that meeting, which I gather was extremely fruitful.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I will not take any further points of order, as it is 3.30 pm. I hand the Chamber to Mr Speaker.

Ukraine

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and comments. He is absolutely right that we will hear many more cases of elderly relatives and grandparents—that is a fact—which is why we have created the family route. I have also been clear that we will give those who come here access to public benefits and the chance to work. We have an established diaspora community in the United Kingdom that works in key industries and key locations, and we will build on that. The Government, and not just the Home Office, have had many offers from employers who absolutely want to help.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the Home Secretary for so thoroughly answering a large number of questions. I have let this item of business run on for much longer than usual because it is so important and I recognise the strength of feeling in the House about it.

Points of Order

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance, because Mr Speaker has generously granted me the end of day Adjournment debate tomorrow on the effectiveness of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. In anticipation of that debate, I tabled a series of named day questions. As of today, seven of those have been outstanding for more than one week and one of them, which names the 1979 Act, has been outstanding for more than six weeks. That seriously inhibits my ability to properly hold the Government to account, because I need answers to those questions before the debate begins. What can you do to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care delivers?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. What I can do is repeat yet again what Mr Speaker has said so often from this Chair, which is that when Members submit questions, they ought to be answered on time. There is simply no excuse for them not to be answered. I repeat most emphatically what Mr Speaker has said many times before, as indeed have all his predecessors and mine, which is that it is simply not acceptable that Departments, which have hundreds and hundreds of civil servants to do that job, do not answer the questions of Members of Parliament.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that the Home Secretary has stayed in her place. This is not to have a go at her but to make a suggestion. Parliamentary privilege is there for an important reason, which is that we can speak without fear or favour. Often, it is there so that we can speak without fear.

I note that the European Union has been able to sanction some oligarchs faster than we have, not because of any lack of will in the UK but because it uses a particular mechanism called non-legislative acts that attracts a degree of privilege. For example, when it says that Alisher Usmanov has been sanctioned, and puts a little paragraph about why, it does not have to fear what may then happen in the courts. In the UK, however, Ministers understandably want to ensure that everything is watertight and that things are done properly, but they are also nervous that the way we do it means that they might be open to legal challenge, which would obviously be disastrous and very expensive.

I wonder whether there is a means of using parliamentary privilege to help the Government to do that more swiftly. If necessary, I would be happy to sit in permanent session in Westminster Hall with Ministers sending names and we will read them out, or they could be submitted as answers to a permanent daily parliamentary written question to a Minister to ask, “Who are you sanctioning today?”. Can the Clerk of the House and Mr Speaker have a conversation with Ministers in the Home Office and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as quickly as possible to see whether there is a way for Parliament to help the Government do it more swiftly?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which may even genuinely be a point of order for the Chair, because it is about the operation of parliamentary privilege and concerns matters that take place in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has set out his thesis clearly and I observe that the Home Secretary has paid careful attention to what he has said.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The Home Secretary is nodding her assent to what I am saying. It is also clear that all hon. Members in this House and in Parliament want to achieve what the hon. Gentleman has described as a course of action. Indeed, the Home Secretary reiterated that this afternoon. I think even the Clerks might be nodding. I hope that now the matter is on the record, it can be taken forward in the most appropriate manner. I am sure that anything that Mr Speaker or his office, or his Deputies, can do to help will be done.

Bill Presented

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Priti Patel, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, Damian Hinds and Paul Scully, presented a Bill to set up a register of overseas entities and their beneficial owners and require overseas entities who own land to register in certain circumstances; to make provision about unexplained wealth orders; and to make provision about sanctions.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 262).

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Jeremy Corbyn, although just before the right hon. Gentleman rises, let me say that I know that he is usually very brief, but it seemed like we had a lot of time for this business and we are now running out of time, so would people just be a bit sharper? It is not a general conversation, but a debate. Let us just get on with it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Sharpness is the order of the day; I will be very brief and very sharp.

This Bill is appalling in so many ways. I will come to that in just a moment. In this set of amendments, we are dealing with people who are suffering the most grotesque exploitation of almost anyone in the world—people who have been trafficked into sexual slavery, and into working illegally in factories and agriculture, and who have no recourse to any support anywhere. They are living in dangerous conditions. They are often isolated and have no one to turn to. While I appreciate that all the amendments are trying to provide better support and better protection for them, these people are the victims of slavery in every form imaginable.

Although I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I do not quite understand why he limits the right to remain to 12 months, because if, at the end of that 12-month period, the person concerned is then faced with deportation, I would ask: deportation to where and under what circumstances? Would they not then be in danger in the country they have originally come from, or from the very gangs that have been called out, because of their seeking safety in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

If I have time, I would not mind saying a little about public order disqualifications. Do I have time for that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It is at the hon. Lady’s discretion, but I think everyone wants the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked this afternoon. If the hon. Lady goes on for very much longer, there will not be an opportunity for that. I am not stopping her, but I hope she will not take too much longer.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will take your advice on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am little unsure whether we will get answers, because we have not any other time we have been asking for them.

Any disqualification from protection must be reserved for the most serious of offenders—those who pose a serious risk to the public or to national security. A public order disqualification for victims with prior convictions of 12 months or more is too wide, as others have said. There is a real danger that genuine victims who could give vital evidence against slavery networks, and who pose absolutely no risk to the public, will be excluded from that support.

The actual figures for referrals of offenders in immigration detention to the NRM are low, as was said earlier, and the Government have published no data to back up the sensationalist claims made in support of these measures. It is another theme running through every part of this Bill. There is nothing to back up their scaremongering claims. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was also asking for evidence. I very much doubt the Minister is going to give us any, but let us wait and see.

I will move on, finally, to say that I fail to see why all of this is part of an immigration Bill. We are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about victims of criminal offences. In 2016, I sat on the Immigration Bill Committee, and a Government Member, who is not present and whose name I will not reveal, told me, “If people do not want to be trafficked, they should simply say no.” That demonstrated a crass misunderstanding of what trafficking is. These are people who are not trying to migrate to this country; they are simply caught up in exploitation and they end up here.

I will end by saying that I would love to hear what the Minister has to say. I have zero faith that we will hear anything. I have never ever been so ashamed as I am today, because I know that Members will vote for this Bill that will damage, exploit and kill vulnerable people, who they claim to care about. It is absolutely a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. We will of course watch the progress of the Bill through the other place with interest, and I am happy to work with him and any others as we do so.

Amendments 127 and 128, to which a number of Members have referred, seek to remove clauses 57 and 58 on the one-stop process as it relates to information relevant to modern slavery. These clauses are crucial to the Bill to enable us to appropriately identify victims at the earliest opportunity and make sure that they get support to rebuild their lives.

Finally, on new clause 39 and amendment 3, I appreciate the concerns about clause 62, but it is right that we should be able to withhold protection from serious criminals and those who pose a national security threat to the UK. I would like to reassure hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that our approach is not to have a blanket disqualification based on public order, but to take a case-by-case approach to decisions and consider the individual’s circumstances.

I would like to restate that our approach is to stamp out this evil and inhuman trade. The Bill is firm and fair, and it is in line with the overall objectives of our new plan for immigration. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will be content not to press their amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby? This is not acceptable: this Division should have been concluded by now. There is a lot of business to be done this afternoon, and taking too long to vote is taking time out of the next item of business.

The House continued to divide.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is an unacceptable delay in the Aye Lobby. It is simply wrong if people are taking too long to vote, deliberately obstructing the Tellers when coming through and remaining in the Lobby when there is no need for them to be remaining in the Lobby in order to stop other business taking place in this House this afternoon. That is unacceptable. There is deliberate action occurring in the Aye Lobby, and it is unacceptable.

--- Later in debate ---

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

This Division will be conducted in a timely fashion. I will not have it obstructed deliberately.

New Clause 6

Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking

(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information

notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.

(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.—[Holly Lynch.]

Brought up,

Question put, That the clause be added Bill.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Is it about the Division?

[Mr Davis]

It is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

[Mr Davis]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.

--- Later in debate ---

15:19

Division 141

Ayes: 234

---

Labour: 167
Scottish National Party: 40
Liberal Democrat: 11
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Alba Party: 2
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 293

---

Conservative: 287
Independent: 1

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

New clause 47 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to move the new clause formally.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Not moved.

Clause 58

Late compliance with slavery or trafficking information notice: damage to credibility

Amendment proposed: 128, page 57, line 25, leave out clause 58.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and clear the Lobby?

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relate to the Division?

[David Linden]

It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is taking quite a lot of time to get through the votes, I wonder whether it might be possible to investigate the idea of introducing this thing called electronic voting, which would speed things up a little bit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman had been behaving properly, I might have taken his point of order seriously. I have to say to him and to the House that a very serious piece of legislation is going through the House today. There has been genuine debate and disagreement about it, but it is legislation that will affect a lot of people in this country and it deserves to be properly considered. The antics that have been reported to me—the way in which certain Members have behaved, very obviously delaying and lengthening the time that the Divisions are taking—are, as I said a few moments ago, contrary to good democratic practice. I deplore the actions of those people who have delayed the Divisions, and who indeed are doing so now. Will they please cast their votes, come back into the Chamber and allow the Third Reading to take place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am not taking your point of order. Sit down—[Interruption.] Sit down! I am not taking any points of order—

[Stephen Flynn]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Sit down! I am not taking a point of order. It would have to be about the Division that we have just had—[Interruption.] Sit down!

Clause 60

Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period

Amendments made: 64, page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the requirement that there must be at least 30 days between the making of a positive reasonable grounds decision in relation to an identified potential victim of slavery or human trafficking and the making of a conclusive grounds decision.

Amendment 65, page 59, line 4, at beginning insert “Subject to section 62(2),”.

This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the prohibition on removal of an identified potential victim does not apply where they are disqualified from protection under clause 62 as a threat to public order or for having acted in bad faith.

Amendment 66, page 59, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the identified potential victim;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64. It ensures that an identified potential victim is entitled to a recovery period (giving protection from removal) of at least 30 days even where a conclusive grounds decision is made within 30 days of the positive reasonable grounds decision.

Clause 61

No entitlement to additional recovery period etc

Amendments made: 67, page 59, line 17, after “person” insert

“, in a case where the reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking arise from things done wholly before the first RG decision was made”.

This amendment corrects a drafting error in the definition of “further RG decision”.

Amendment 68, page 59, line 18, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.

Amendment 69, page 59, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—

“(2) If the competent authority considers it appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority may determine that the person may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom during the period—

(a) beginning with the day on which the further RG decision is made, and

(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).

This is subject to section 62(2).”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment removes the disapplication of a requirement to make a conclusive grounds decision following a “further RG decision” and instead provides that, although an identified potential victim is not automatically entitled to protection from removal following a further RG decision, the competent authority may decide that it is appropriate to give them that protection.

Clause 62

Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection

Amendments made: 70, page 60, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment is consequential on Amendments 64 and 69.

Amendment 71, page 60, line 4, at end insert “, and

(c) any requirement under section 64 to grant the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment provides that if an identified potential victim is disqualified from protection (on the grounds of public order or acting in bad faith) but goes on to receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, any requirement to grant them leave to remain in the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise under clause 64 ceases to apply.

Clause 63

Identified potential victims etc in England and Wales: assistance and support

Amendments made: 72, page 61, line 28, leave out from “any” to “arising” in line 29 and insert

“physical, psychological or social harm”.

This amendment changes the reference to “social well-being” to “social harm” to follow more closely the language of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

Amendment 73, page 61, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69.

Amendment 74, page 61, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—

(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;

(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.

Amendment 75, page 61, line 45, leave out subsection (5).—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 73.

Clause 64

Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendments made: 78, page 62, line 23, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.

This amendment and Amendments 81 to 83 make minor drafting changes for consistency with related provisions on the statute book.

Amendment 76, page 62, line 26, after “any” insert “physical or psychological”.

This amendment removes assisting a victim of slavery or human trafficking in their recovery from harm to their social well-being from the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State is required to give a victim limited leave to remain the United Kingdom.

Amendment 77, page 62, line 27, leave out from “exploitation” to end of line 28.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.

Amendment 79, page 62, line 33, at end insert—

“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section 62(2).”

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 71.

Amendment 80, page 63, line 3, leave out “as” and insert

“which may be, but does not need to be, an agreement”.

This amendment makes it clear that a trafficking victim may be removed to a country which is not a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, if the UK has made an agreement with that country.

Amendment 81, page 63, line 9, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Amendment 82, page 63, line 11, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Amendment 83, page 63, line 12, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.—(Rachel Maclean.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.

Clause 81

Extent

Amendment made: 84, page 79, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

“(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised so as to extend (with or without modification) to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.

(6) Those provisions are—

(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971,

(b) section 15(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993,

(c) section 13(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996,

(d) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997,

(e) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,

(f) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,

(g) section 338 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,

(h) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004,

(i) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,

(j) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007,

(k) section 57(5) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009,

(l) section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014,

(m) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,

(n) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016, and

(o) section 8(2) of the Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020”.—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended, by Order in Council, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Clause 82

Commencement

Amendments made: 85, page 79, line 21, leave out “This Part and”.

This amendment, and Amendment 86, make minor drafting changes needed as a result of Amendment 87.

Amendment 86, page 79, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) this Part.”

See statement for Amendment 85.

Amendment 87, page 79, line 26, at end insert—

“(3A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making (and, where required, consulting on) regulations—

(a) section 13 (requirement to make asylum claim at “designated place”);

(b) section 26 (accelerated detained appeals);

(c) section 41 and Schedule 4 (penalty for failure to secure goods vehicle etc);

(d) section 42 (working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry);

(e) section 49 (persons subject to immigration control: referral or age assessment by local authority);

(f) section 51 (regulations about use of scientific methods in age assessments);

(g) section 52 (regulations about age assessments);

(h) section 68 (interpretation of Part 5);

(i) section 77 (pre-consolidation amendments of immigration legislation).”

This amendment brings powers in the Bill to make regulations into force on Royal Assent, so that the regulations can be prepared in advance of the substantive provisions being commenced. The regulations themselves will not be commenced for at least two months after Royal Assent.

Amendment 88, page 79, line 38, leave out paragraph (g).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 89, page 79, line 42, leave out paragraphs (j) and (k).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Amendment 90, page 80, line 3, leave out paragraph (n).—(Rachel Maclean.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.

Third Reading

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

On a point of order—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. No points of order!

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo your remarks—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman rises again, I will require him to leave the Chamber.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appalling that we have seen these delaying tactics today.

This Bill introduces the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in over two decades, and it is a shame that Members of this House have brought in these delaying tactics today to prevent this debate. Our Bill will bring in a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on. Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We will now hear the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary.

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not give way further, so that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) can have some time. The Back Benchers have debated this Bill already.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Sit down. The Home Secretary does not have time to take interventions, neither will the shadow Home Secretary, because time has been wasted by the Members on the SNP Benches. Stay in your seat.

[Priti Patel]

They do not like hearing the fact that this Government will seek to rapidly remove those with no legal right to be in the UK. We are establishing a fast-track appeal process and streamlining the appeal system, making it quicker to remove failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals, the very people they would like to keep in this country. We will tackle the practice of meritless last-minute claims and appeals that clog up the courts, which is a fundamental unfairness that, by the way, even the legal profession says has been frustrating it for too long because the justice system has been gamed. We will protect the rights of modern-day slavery victims, too.

On that basis, we will bring in a fundamental change. The Opposition have had a chance to back the Bill, and they have chosen not to back the Bill. They want open borders, and they would encourage more people smuggling and more dangerous crossings that would compromise our national interest and our public safety. Our opponents have no answers to this Bill, and we are the ones who want to control illegal migration. We want to take back control of our borders. Many Opposition Members have written letters opposing the deportation of murderers and rapists. [Interruption.] They can say they have not, but they have.

This Bill will bring in fundamental reform, and I commend it to the House.

English Channel Small Boats Incident

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes some important points. We have removal centres for very good and strong reasons. They are for people with no legal right to remain in our country, and we have to put them in the removal centres as part of the process to move them on. The fundamental point here is the reforms that we are trying to bring in, which are being thwarted by the Opposition. By preventing these changes and reforms, they are playing into the hands of the people smugglers and those who are being put into the hands of the traffickers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

And finally, the price for patience and perseverance goes to Duncan Baker.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That will teach me to be last in.

The situation yesterday was an absolute tragedy, but the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that there is no single silver bullet to fix the problem. Does she agree that there are, broadly, three huge areas to cover? The first is international co-operation, which has to be there if we are to work with other countries. Secondly, domestic legislation has to be put in place, which is what we are doing through the Nationality and Borders Bill, to fix our borders and the broken asylum system. Lastly, we need the toughest possible measures and surveillance to crack down on the criminality of those gangs that are aiding and abetting the situation every day.