National Security Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22B in lieu—


22B: After Clause 14, insert the following new Clause—


“Foreign interference in elections: duties on political parties


(1) A UK-registered political party must, within three months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, publish a policy statement to ensure the identification of donations from a foreign power (whether made directly or through an intermediary).


(2) A UK-registered political party must provide the Electoral Commission with an annual statement setting out individually the details of all donations from a foreign power, including whether made directly or through an intermediary (and identifying all such intermediaries).


(3) In this section, “UK-registered political party” means a political party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.””

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A1 as an amendment to Motion A and proposing Amendment 22B in lieu, I should say that I shall support, if it is necessary to do so, Amendment 122B, which will be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

The Minister mentioned the very pleasant meeting I had with three Ministers and a number of officials about my amendment, and I was very grateful for that meeting. I was given a very simple message—with which I do not agree—that the law goes far enough to protect political parties and those who vote for them from the intervention of foreign powers. My amendment would place no extra burden on Ministers; I removed that from the original version. What it does—rightly, in my view—is place a burden on political parties to do what in the commercial world is routine and carry out proper due diligence, as the term is, on the people who contribute to them.

I listened with great care to what the Minister said a few moments ago. If my noble friend Lord Kerr will forgive me for quoting one of his many memorable sotto voce utterances, he turned and said to me, “So that leaves it to the thief to report the crime, doesn’t it?” I agree with him. Indeed, what the Minister said suggested that when, say, a company is used, up there in Companies House, if you make a complaint, there are investigators who will carry out an investigation to see where the money ultimately comes from—the ultimate donors, not those nice nominees who are nominated directors of the company. However, I do not know how many of your Lordships know this, but Companies House has no investigators whatever—zilch, zero. If noble Lords will take the trouble, during the boring parts of what I hope will be a short speech, to look at GOV.UK, they will see that it tells people that if they want an investigation done into a company they should go to the Serious Fraud Office or somewhere like that.

I accept that the Government want political parties to be properly funded, not improperly funded, although some political parties have accepted unusual sums of money from unusual places. However, I hope that the Minister—and noble Lords if this comes to a vote later—will agree that more due diligence is needed, and that we cannot take at face value that the criminal should report his own crime. We are dealing with bad people here, not good people.

I thank the organisation Spotlight on Corruption for some excellent research that it has done; I feel that it deserves that namecheck. Donations from foreign powers are a significant threat to the UK’s national security and undermine the integrity and credibility of our democratic processes. There is plenty of evidence to support that. A report in 2020 by the Intelligence and Security Committee identified that members of the Russian elite linked to Putin had donated to UK political parties.

Another bit of evidence is that in January 2022 the Security Service warned that an alleged Chinese agent had sought to influence UK parliamentarians on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party and had donated to two major political parties that stand in every seat in this country. In mid-April 2023 concerns were raised in Parliament about alleged links between the Chinese Communist Party and Conservative Party fundraising. The Minister of State for Policing said that

“all political parties need to be alert to the danger of representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or influence their activities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/4/23; col. 249.]

This amendment is just that alert.

The Home Office impact assessment for the Bill emphasises that foreign interference is a direct attack on our sovereignty, national institutions and values. The Bill will not prevent that attack unless political parties are required to play a part. One of the noblest things that this noble, unelected House does is to protect democracy from itself, and that is what the amendment is intended to do.

We turn to the safeguards that the Minister says are effective. They are not. The rules that are supposed to prohibit foreign donations in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 are absolutely riddled with loopholes. They enable foreign money to be channelled to political parties and MPs through what appear to be lawful donors, such as UK-registered businesses and unincorporated associations. The Act requires UK political parties only to check the status of donors; it does not require them to have a risk-based approach to donations. The nominated directors may look like ordinary nominees, but I think it was yesterday that we heard from my noble friend Lord Vaux, in an excellent speech, how names can appear in Companies House as directors and bear no relationship to the control of a company. We come to the same point twice in two days. While the UK’s anti-money laundering framework has been progressively tightened over the last decade, the minimal checks that parties are required to perform are a glaring anomaly.

How effective are the sanctions? The Electoral Commission referred eight cases to the Metropolitan Police in the period 2011 to 2021. I will give your Lordships one guess as to how many prosecutions there have been—absolutely none, because it is completely unreasonable to ask the police suddenly to move into this complex area to carry out the detective work and do the due diligence that any company, whether significant or relatively insignificant, should carry out.

I do not accept for one moment that what I am proposing will affect tiny political parties, because they will be taking their funds from a small group of closely interested people who will, effectively, be their close friends. What we are talking about here is the bigger political parties.

There is consensus among independent experts that parties should check the source of donations. In 2018, the Electoral Commission argued that risk management principles adapted from anti-money laundering undertaken by businesses could

“prevent foreign money being used in UK politics”.

It emphasised that political parties had a duty to do just that. This was supported, in effect, in the July 2021 report Regulating Election Finance by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

I was pleased to note that my original amendment, to which this is in itself an amendment, was supported in the other place by the Conservative chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Sir Julian Lewis MP, who said that the need for political parties to do more to determine the source of donations is “entirely appropriate” and that the additional measures would not be “over-onerous” and were “eminently reasonable”. The Government said that the amendment would impose “huge administrative burdens” on grass-roots political campaigning, but this is just not the case. As the chair of the Electoral Commission has highlighted, a requirement to determine the true source of donations is proportionate and would not by design overburden smaller parties with limited resources.

About 35 years ago, when I was an MP in the old Liberal Party, my Whip and the Opposition Labour Whips asked me to go and sit on the Reasons Committee in the other place. I think it was not really a compliment. If your Lordships have ever been behind the Speaker’s chair they will know that there is a little room, which I thought until that night was private facilities for the Speaker. In fact, it is the reasons room, though that is not on the door, because visitors would assume that it was straight out of “Alice in Wonderland”—and it is, a bit. The Government of the time were privatising the railways and the opposition parties had tried to avoid ping-pong happening twice in one night. I think the reason I was chosen was that they thought I could keep a debate on next to nothing going for an extremely long time.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am not sure how to take that laughter.

Interestingly, we debated for one and three-quarter hours who should be the chair of the committee, until my pager pinged—we had pagers in those days. It read: “You can go home now. Their Lordships have gone to bed”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, I will make sure that those concerns are reflected to my right honourable friend the Security Minister, who will see the committee fairly soon. As I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, clearly I will make sure that this debate is widely understood in the appropriate places.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate; I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his great courtesy. I say to him, with great respect, that he has answered mostly questions of his choice that were not directly relevant to the points I made. In my experience over the years, the repetition of a weak defence is capable of convincing only the defendant and nobody else.

I thank those who spoke. It is worth mentioning their names for a particular reason. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was powerful, as ever. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made some powerful additional points. The noble Lord, Lord West, is always the right person to have on the bridge with you if you can arrange it; he spoke powerfully about the views of the ISC. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaks on matters of the constitution with great political and academic knowledge, and has done so for many years. I have always respected the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, whom I have watched in the other place as well as here, for the wisdom of his views. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has yet again made another powerful speech in your Lordships’ House. Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, was the only Member on the Conservative Back Benches to speak in this debate—a factor that I take to be of significance.

Taking all that into account, it is my intention to invite the House to agree to my Motion by expressing its opinion.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 129 on refugee family reunion. I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Refugee family reunion does exist as a safe and legal route but it needs to be expanded. I was proud to steer a Private Member’s Bill on that subject; it passed through this House and is currently in the other place. I picked up the baton from my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has worked on this issue for many years.

The problem at the moment is not only that the safe routes available to refugees are extremely limited; last year, refugee settlement provided in collaboration with the UNHCR decreased by 39% and the issuing of refugee family reunion visas decreased by nearly a quarter—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to this. In the year ending March 2022, 6,000 family reunion visas were issued. In the year ending March 2023, there were only 4,600—a reduction of 23%. The Bill misses an opportunity for the UK to curb the number of irregular arrivals by creating more routes to safety and—I would like it to fulfil this opportunity—to allow more family members to join those who have reached safety in this country, including by letting separated refugee children be joined by their closest family members.

Last year, the Nationality and Borders Act restricted access to family reunion for refugees arriving in the UK irregularly. Of course, it has failed to replace the Dublin regulations since we left the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the hole that exists for international co-operation; we might refer to that later today. Although those restrictions from last year’s Act are beginning to take effect only now, preliminary research from Refugee Legal Support has already found evidence of children who would previously have been eligible for reunification being stranded in Europe and crossing the channel dangerously.

Australia provides an example of the longer-term impact of this sort of restriction. In 2014, Australia reintroduced temporary protection visas—which do not confer family reunion rights—and has seen an increase in the number of women and children arriving via dangerous journeys. We should remember that 90% of those arriving on family reunion visas in this country are women and children. I am sure I do not need to convince noble Lords of the importance of family reunion for refugees’ integration into their new communities. Surely that should be our aim. If we have allowed people the legal right to settle here, and in some cases be on a path to citizenship, surely we should want to do anything that fosters integration and the physical, emotional and psychological adjustment of people.

Refugees separated from their families can, understandably, experience serious mental health difficulties, compounding the trauma that they have already experienced. This means that they are less able to focus on activities which are essential to integration, such as learning English, building new relationships in the community, and working, which is another topic that we will talk about today. In the other place, the Conservative MP Tim Loughton tabled a new clause seeking to expand eligibility for refugee family reunion, and I applaud him for that. It did not get pushed to a vote.

The problem is that current family reunion entitlements are too restrictive. I have mentioned that refugee children are not allowed to sponsor family members within the Immigration Rules, and we have also had the creation of those bespoke pathways, such as the Afghan route, which do not confer protection status, meaning that some resettled people in the UK have no eligibility for refugee family reunion because they do not have the necessary status to sponsor family. All those with protection needs must have access to refugee family reunion. This pathway should be expanded to allow children to sponsor their parents and siblings and adult refugees to sponsor parents who are dependent on them.

We referred on Monday to the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, announcing on 8 June that the differentiation policy, which under last year’s Act decides whether someone is a group 1 or group 2 refugee, would be paused, and that those previously given group 2 status would have their entitlements increased. However, the announcement says only that the policy will be paused. The power to differentiate will still be on the statute book. Can the Minister explain exactly where that leaves us, and the Government’s intention on how to go forward on this? Will they bring forward an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Act to delete group 2 refugees?

This Bill does not deal directly with refugee family reunion, and my amendment is designed to fill that hole. However, the Bill would dramatically reduce the number of people eligible for this route, as we have discussed, because it makes asylum applications from people who travel irregularly permanently inadmissible. They would never be granted protection status and would therefore never be able to sponsor family members. I propose expanding the Immigration Rules to allow refugee children to sponsor parents and siblings, refugees to sponsor their dependent parents, and Afghans settled via pathways 1 and 3 of the ACRS to be able to act as sponsors for the purposes of refugee family reunion.

I am afraid to say that research from the Refugee Council and Oxfam has found evidence of refugees turning to smugglers after realising that there were no legal routes available to bring their loved ones to join them. A lack of access to family reunification does appear to be a key driver of dangerous journeys. As many as half of those seeking to cross the channel from northern France have family links to the UK.

Finally, our Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, published a report in February called All Families Matter: An Inquiry into Family Migration. One of its recommendations was:

“The Government should harmonise which relatives are, or are not, eligible for entry and stay across”


various

“immigration pathways and the Government should be transparent about the reasons for any differences”,

because there is variation in the definition of a family.

I am afraid that the Government’s response had me rather puzzled; it appears to be a bit circular. They say:

“We do not think it is … right … to fully harmonise the conditions … There are clear differences between immigration routes relating to family members. Given the broad and diverse offer for family members across the immigration system, it is right that requirements vary according to the nature and purpose of their stay in the UK”.


I felt that that was a bit circular or tautological—I am not sure which is the right description. They say that, because it varies at the moment, it is right that we carry on with the variations. I do not think that any reasons or explanation were given; it was just stating why we go all round the houses.

I urge support for Amendment 129 and suggest that it is an extremely valuable part of the provisions on safe and legal routes; it is a subset, if you like, of everything we are debating this morning. The problem is that the current provisions are far from being sensibly expanded to the benefit of the families—the settled refugees and their families—and our society as a whole. One thing that we often hear from the Conservative Party is that it is party of the family. Many of us would dispute that; but if it is, it should support not only the maintenance but the expansion of refugee family reunion, which is currently going in the wrong direction.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 130 and 131, but I speak in support of all the amendments in this group.

There have been some very good and persuasive speeches, but I refer particularly—and I am sure that others will understand why—to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. Why? For more than one reason. First, the noble Lord was the Immigration Minister at a time of particular attrition in Bosnia, as he referred to, and he has a great deal of knowledge on that matter. Secondly, he has had the courage to make his speech from the Conservative Back Benches in your Lordships’ House, and I particularly look forward to the Minister dealing, line by line as it were, with every point made by the noble Lord.

Thirdly, my belief is that, somehow or other, the Bill is a visceral part of the attempt to win votes beyond the red wall. However, the Government only have to look at the noble Lord’s history to find somebody who has within his blood and bones the red wall: he cut his teeth in the north-east of England; he represented part of another great city in the north-east of England; and he represented his party in Europe, on behalf of areas beyond the red wall. So, if the Government are listening to those whom they are aspiring to gain votes from, perhaps he, above all, is the person they should be listening to at the moment. I hope he will forgive me, because praise from me may not be altogether familiar or welcome.

I hope that everybody in this House wants to stop the boats. My question is: do we want to stop the boats by means within international law and treaties, or by means that are in breach of those international laws and treaties that we have signed? As I pointed out in a debate I think the day before yesterday—although it might just have been early yesterday—the Home Office website, at least when I was speaking very early yesterday morning, still had on its immigration pages inferences that we have to obey international law on immigration and asylum.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

That is the tension in tone and competence in these various departments that I wanted to highlight in Amendment 139. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I have put my name to Amendments 134 and 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I will leave it to him to speak to them if he wishes to do so at any length. I support these amendments to ensure that we have accountability and review, and I do so on a probing basis.

I think the Minister who will reply to this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been in the Chamber when the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, has been subjected to a considerable amount of attrition on the Bill—which he has treated with commendable control and self-restraint. Few have been provoked as much as he has in this Chamber in recent years. That said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Murray, would confirm in his private conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is real concern in your Lordships’ House and in certain well-informed sectors in the country about the consequences of the Bill.

In the recent past we have had reviews—I and my noble friend Lord Anderson have been part of this in relation to terrorism—which have reported to Parliament in relation to controversial pieces of legislation that cause great concern, particularly to Members of the other place. I understand that, having been one. I simply ask the Government to take into account that such reviews are necessary in some form and to provide for accountability and review of the consequences of the Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She made her case for transferring this responsibility from the Home Office to the Foreign Office on grounds of efficiency and good administration. In my totally unbiased view, it is of course the case that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a model of efficiency and good administration. But on practical grounds, I really do not agree with this.

There is a Foreign Office role. The role of the treaty section is monitoring, ratification procedures and quality control over the treaties that we sign. There is a role for legal advisers, referred to by the noble Baroness, monitoring the Government’s respect for their treaty obligations and, if necessary, reminding other departments of the obligations that we have taken on.

There could be a role for our posts abroad. I strongly support the proposal in Amendment 130 for the safe passage visa. It would be very good if our posts abroad were allowed, say, to filter out applications that are clearly not unfounded and to assist applicants with the electronic application system. That would be very good, but the trend in the Home Office, which the noble Baroness in my view correctly described, to move more and more to being a department of the interior, with a bit of homeland security, would be increased if responsibility for carrying out our treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers were transferred to another department.

Moreover, the Foreign Office really is not equipped to take on the enhanced teams required to deal with 178,000 applicants in the asylum queue. So, although I understand the noble Baroness’s motives and applaud her praise for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I am against this proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Government may be able to look at the potential economic argument. Not allowing these people to work is, for a Conservative Government, very odd.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, at an earlier stage in our debates on the Bill, I referred to the fact that I am a member of the Woolf Institute’s Commission on the Integration of Refugees, which is declared in the register of interests.

I and some other Members of both Houses of Parliament have had the advantage of going to a number of meetings where those with lived experience of applying for asylum and achieving it have told us about their experience. Unanimously, they say that being unable to work while there has been work obviously available for them has been the most dispiriting experience. It is the thing that has driven them—most of them young people with considerable skills, and some with professional and technological qualifications—near to total despair. It seems entirely unreasonable that they should not be able to work when, as my noble friend has said, there is clearly work available and the pull factor has been shown to be non-existent.

The other thing that people with lived experience have mentioned is the lack of availability of higher education in particular in some areas. I invite Ministers to take account of that issue too.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name to it. She regrets that she cannot be here today; she is actually working with the Woolf Institute’s independent commission on refugee integration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords who have eloquently made the case for the amendment already.

As it stands, the Bill makes the case for a right to work for some asylum seekers more important than ever. Of course, it is a theme that has come up already. There is little prospect of potential removals being able to keep pace with the large population of asylum seekers who will be deemed inadmissible in the future, and currently we have a huge backlog. We risk the creation of a permanent underclass. Apart from the deleterious effects, that drives some of those people into the grey and black economies because they are not allowed to work openly.

In principle, there may be a grain of evidence on the pull factors but not very much at all, as has been noted already. Allowing a subset of asylum seekers to work does not undermine the duty on the Secretary of State to remove people or open up any path to citizenship or leave to remain. If the Government are able to deliver on their own timelines for processing people and deeming that they are refugees, or should be removed, not a single person will ever attain the right to work under the amendment. We ought to consider the amendment as nothing more than a failsafe aimed only at those who have been here far too long without the ability to support themselves easily and who wish to work and contribute to their own welfare, that of their local community and sometimes that of their family, back in the land they have come from, who are sometimes in semi-hiding.

I think of a friend of mine—I will share a bit of the story, but I do not want to identify them in any way—who has been given the right to work because their claim was not dealt with within 12 months. Because of the inefficiency of the system, it took nearly 12 months after that for them to be told they had the right to work. They are now working in the care sector, way below the level of qualifications and experience they have in their life; they could potentially offer huge amounts to this country. They fled because of persecution. What do they do with most of their money? They pay tax and so on, but they send most of it back to the home country to support their family who are in semi-hiding. It enables their dignity to feel able to support their family, as well as taking part in the life of the community and feeling they are contributing to a country that, they still hope, will welcome them.

This is entirely in line with Conservative economic arguments. It is in line with everything in the universal credit system about encouraging people into work and supporting themselves. Please, it is time to agree to this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I cannot, and I am not here to get into a detailed discussion about that. I am simply trying to make this point. Noble Lords are raising the issue of productivity and the economy as a justification for accepting this right now in the Bill. As I said to the Committee earlier, there is some value and legitimacy, in principle, to some of the arguments being made. For instance, I would support the right reverend Prelate’s argument about ensuring that people who come to this country and are waiting for their application to be processed are able to make their contribution. However, we need to get to a position where the current rate of asylum seekers in the system is not that with which we are currently dealing.

Some noble Lords are arguing to be able to do both at the same time. Of course, I absolutely agree that the Home Office must be much better than it currently is at processing these things. I am not disagreeing with any of this. Unlike those noble Lords, however, I am saying that, for that kind of change to be accepted by the country at large, we have to take steps to get there. If you look at the bigger issue of immigration, part of what we are trying to do is to create a system that is acceptable and works for the country as a whole, and that everybody can have confidence in, so that they can feel much more in line with what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, would like everyone to feel and believe regarding the changes she wishes to see. We cannot do it all at the same time.

That is what I am trying to do. I am not trying to argue about pull or push factors; just that the Bill is about an immediate issue that the Government are rightly trying to respond to—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I will finish my point and then I will give way. I think that some of the matters that noble Lords are advancing should not be dealt with at this time. I give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder whether she will answer the next question with a yes or no, because I am confused by some of the things I have heard from her. If a job is available and an asylum seeker is the only person available who can realistically fill it, does she agree that, after three months or so, the asylum seeker should be allowed to take that job?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

At the moment, if somebody is still awaiting a decision on their asylum status or their status as a citizen or resident of the country, they are not eligible for employment—no.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Surely noble Lords can speak only if they have been present throughout the debate from the very beginning.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right—that is correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

The noble Lord may be referring to my having to rush out urgently—I needed to get a glass of water. I shall catch up with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which I missed with great regret, but I was back for the next one.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I do not want to be unkind, but the rest of us manage to persuade the door- keepers to bring us glasses of water.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

May I? Forgive me, I am normally somebody who is a stickler for us keeping to the Companion—absolutely, for sure. However, if the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can contribute to this debate having not even been here at the beginning, when my noble friend was here at the beginning and nipped out to get a glass of water, I think we can hear from my noble friend. If the noble Lord is minded to object, I would hope he would have objected to his noble colleague speaking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Baroness misunderstood my first comment. It was in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind my using her as an excuse but, on reflection, I think that I was unkind to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I wish to apologise to the House.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, shall I move on to Amendment 150? In fact, it takes us back to the previous group; I have no idea why it comes into this group. It would provide that the Act should not come into force until at least 28 days—I propose—after the Secretary of State has published a statement confirming the number of persons who, for a period of six months or more, have been awaiting final determination of their claim for asylum; and that, for not less than six months, that number has been not more than 20,000.

That may be a little circular and rambling but, basically, it proposes that we should get to a steady state in dealing with asylum applications. The periods may not be ones that noble Lords agree with, but I propose a figure of 20,000 people, which is not a negligible number of people. This amendment seeks to be realistic and provide a bit of—to our minds—common sense to the context of what we are debating.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lord Paddick—who probably had no option but to sign it. This is a serious amendment that follows on from the serious points made about the operations of the Home Office. It is the backlog that is the problem. So much of this debate has suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that the position that we are in is somehow the fault of those who are seeking asylum, which is not an easy thing to take on.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group. In so doing, I refer your Lordships to my entries in the register of interests, particularly as patron of the AIDS and HIV charity, the Terrence Higgins Trust.

I particularly support the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who brilliantly explained the reasoning behind them. As he says in his explanatory statement to Amendment 105, the current wording of Clause 38(5)(c) is too wide and would preclude

“a human rights claim pursuant to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights”,

which the Government are suddenly clinging on to. It would also preclude a protection claim pursuant to the refugee convention. I am not a lawyer, so I will not dwell too much on those matters; however, I support the argument that what is proposed in this clause is not in conformity with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and not in accordance with the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom.

At the heart of this provision is the removal to the so-called safe countries in Schedule 1. As your Lordships will know, I am not alone in my concerns; they were discussed with great concern on the first and third days in Committee and today. Indeed, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, tried to reassure me and others that the list was really an amalgam and that the countries, where people who might be subject to discrimination because they belong to a particular social group will be going, might perhaps say, “We don’t want them”. That is a wonderful hypothetical answer, but my reply is: what if a person who is HIV positive is sent to a country, such as Uganda, where that person, if they are lesbian, gay or bisexual, would have to say to their medical practitioner that they are lesbian, gay or bisexual? That medical practitioner, if they did not reveal that information to the Government, would face two years’ imprisonment, while the person receiving treatment themselves could be criminalised. That is just one country from a huge range of countries, not only around the world but particularly within the Commonwealth. Some 80% of the countries of the Commonwealth currently criminalise people because of their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Because of the lateness, I will now take my place. But for the reason I have just cited, and many more, I heartily and unreservedly support these amendments, particularly those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of both my noble and learned friends, who sit to my right in the Chamber. I am particularly grateful, as I think the whole Committee is, to my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton for the very clear exposition he gave of the law and of the consequences of these provisions which change the law.

I will put my very short analysis of this into “faults” and “conclusions”. Clause 38 is word soup, full of tautology and contradictions—the sort of thing that makes fortunes for lawyers if they can get in front of judges, like my noble and learned friends in the very senior courts, and make esoteric arguments based on an analysis of the text. The word soup is most certainly not a consommé clarified by the use of egg whites, so that you can see through it to the bottom of the bowl. It is more like a sort of mad minestrone, into which the draftsman has thrown every word vegetable that he or she could find.

Let us look at Clause 38(3), where the “serious harm condition” is in inverted commas. I was taught at school never to use inverted commas, if you could avoid it, because they show a weakness in your argument, unless it is a quotation that someone said. It says:

“The ‘serious harm condition’ is that P would, before the end of the relevant period, face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk”.


Supposing we missed out the words “real, imminent and”, what difference would it make if it simply read,

“before the end of the relevant period, face a … foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”?

If one missed out the words “and irreversible”, would it mean less if it read:

“The ‘serious harm condition’ is that P would, before the end of the relevant period, face a … foreseeable risk of serious … harm if removed from the United Kingdom”?


What are they trying to gain by the word soup—the possibility of making bizarre submissions in front of the senior courts in which my noble and learned friends sat?

After those comments, if you were asked, “What does all this mean?” by a lay man who might be up at 10.10 pm looking at parliamentary TV or parliamentlive.tv and fascinated by every word in this debate, you would say to him, “Just go and have a look at Clause 38(5)(c)”, which refers to

“where the standard of healthcare available to P in the relevant country or territory is lower than is available to P in the United Kingdom”.

They—or at least those who were well informed enough to be sitting up at 10.10 pm, watching parliamentary TV—would immediately say, “This is deliberate discrimination against gay men”. What else is this for?

We should be ashamed of ourselves if, at least when it comes to Report, we allow this kind of provision to remain in the Bill and do not help my noble and learned friends to pass their amendments. But I hope that we do not have to reach that stage, because this word soup should seem as ridiculous to our noble friends the Ministers as it does to some of us.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting, if not bewildering, debate—at least to us non-lawyers. My lay interpretation of the provisions we debated in this group is that they highlight the danger of asylum seekers being removed to countries where they could come to harm by making the level of proof required to suspend removal so high, and by making the evidence required to prevent their removal so compelling—within impossibly short timescales—as to make the likelihood of a successful claim diminishingly small. If it turns out that it is not diminishingly small enough, the provisions allow the Secretary of State to redefine what “serious and irreversible harm” means to make sure that the tap is turned off almost completely.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, questioned whether such an approach is compatible with existing law. It is quite clear what the Government are trying to do here: make it impossible for anyone to resist removal from this country under the provisions of the Bill. That is why we do not believe that Clauses 37 to 42 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I can be relatively brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for introducing her amendments so powerfully and with such knowledge. I agree with her that there is a curious disparity between Clauses 52 and 53, and my proposition is that they should be swept away and should not stand part of the Bill. As she said, the Home Office getting its act together and making decent decisions in the first place would be how to reduce the workload and what the Government seem to think is the overreach of the courts—I do not agree that it is overreach. If you get things right first time, you would not need to keep attacking the courts.

Clause 52 is a straightforward ban on domestic courts granting interim remedies to stop the removal of a person from the UK. We are familiar with this “courts are enemies of the people” stuff. The interim remedies are valuable because they allow the courts to maintain the status quo while a claim is considered. When the harm in question is a violation of human rights, the ability to freeze the situation is valuable. Denying the courts the ability to use interim remedies when justice demands it undermines the guarantees of Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR. Clause 52 should be removed, and I am glad to say that the JCHR agrees.

Clause 53 is a different animal altogether. It is really rather peculiar, and it takes a strange and circuitous route to block interim measures from Strasbourg, by giving a Minister discretion to decide whether or not to disapply the duty on the Home Secretary to remove the person. Given the negotiations under way over the procedure for deciding interim measures, as reported in the press and alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this clause appears to be more politics than law. It is strange, given that the Prime Minister was recently in Reykjavik, at the summit of the Council of Europe—and given that the JCHR’s recent report says:

“We welcome the Prime Minister’s recent reaffirmation of his ‘deep and abiding’ commitment to the ECHR”


and the European Court of Human Rights, made at that very recent summit.

Then, the Government propose in Clause 53 to give Ministers permission to act in direct violation of the UK’s obligations under the ECHR. Talk about right hand and left hand: it is not only incoherent but provocative. That does not seem wise, if the aim is open and good-faith negotiation on possible procedural reform. It is very reminiscent of the way the Government went about dealing—or rather, not dealing—with Brussels over the Brexit negotiations: always aiming to antagonise, then turning around and saying that they are punishing us.

Clause 53 is irresponsible and it is not going to progress any negotiations, in so far as they are necessary, and given the small number of interim measures issued by the Strasbourg court, it seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not only is Clause 53 likely to hinder discussions on procedural reform, if that is necessary; it makes broader conflict with the European Court of Human Rights all but inevitable. If there is dissatisfaction with the procedures in Strasbourg, the solution is to pursue reform at the European level—and there have been many instances of discussions in the Council of Europe about the processes of the convention and the court. It is not even saying, “We will never obey interim measures”; it gives the Minister the discretion to refuse to comply with our obligations by obeying interim measures. Surely, the UK’s interests are better served by remaining, in the Foreign Secretary’s words, a “serious player” on the world stage, rather than undermining its own influence in this way. I therefore believe that Clauses 52 and 53 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I want to make a brief contribution on Clause 53. We cannot ask the Minister to comment on the impact assessment, because it is yet to be born, but we have the advantage of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. At paragraph 12, on page 121 of that report, in its recommendations and conclusions, it says that

“clause 53 gives Ministers legislative permission to act in direct violation of the UK obligations under the ECHR. Where a Minister chooses to ignore an interim measure and therefore breach Article 34 of the ECHR, clause 53 also prevents the courts from having regard to interim measures when considering proceedings under this Bill. This clause therefore permits deliberate breaches of our obligation to comply with interim measures of the ECtHR. Clause 53 must be removed from the Bill”.

That is the conclusion of an all-party Joint Committee of both Houses of this Parliament, and I trust that, in his response to the debate, the Minister will respond and give us his reasons for not accepting that carefully considered conclusion of the committee in one of the largest reports it has ever produced—and in the time when they could have produced 20 impact assessments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am grateful for that short intervention. I am now not sure whether I am intervening on the noble Baroness’s speech or she is intervening on mine but she made a couple of points. I do not know whether she has seen my notes because I was going to come to the state practice point in a moment. Frankly, I should not really give this away but that point is probably the best point against the arguments that I am running. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, did not mention it but I shall do so; it is the best point. I am not speaking for the Government so I am not going to divine what is in the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, or that of the Minister who will respond; they can speak for themselves and I will speak for myself.

What I was saying is twofold. First, I was not saying that there are no circumstances in which you cannot justify a Rule 39 order. I thought I had made it clear that, if you can justify it properly under Article 34 in the particular circumstances of the case—such as a death penalty case—and there are proper natural justice provisions, it could be justified. That is my first point.

My second point is that the mere fact that states abide by Rule 39 indications will not, I suggest, be enough for state practice as a matter of international law. The fact that a court tells me to do X and I do it does not show that I accept that the court has jurisdiction to tell me to do it. I might choose to do it because I do not want to pick a fight with the court. One has to find a more detailed and forthright statement that is sufficiently unambiguous, and then look at that coupled with everything else.

I have delayed the Committee long enough. On this point, I direct the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, to Policy Exchange, on which she is absolutely right. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, was picked up and dealt with by Professor Ekins in that report.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Before I give way, may I make one other short point? I respectfully suggest that state practice cannot give a court jurisdiction when it does not have it. All state practice can do is go to the interpretation of a treaty. It does not go to the creation of a power or a jurisdiction; that point may not be one to discuss as the clock strikes midnight, but now is a good time for me to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I draw his attention to the current, as of today, UK Visas and Immigration guidance, Judicial Reviews, Injunctions and Applications to the European Court of Human Rights. Where it deals with Rule 39, it says that

“a Rule 39 indication is similar to an Administrative Court … injunction but is”,

to state the obvious, made by the European Court of Human Rights. It goes on:

“Where you have been notified that a rule 39 indication has been made, you must … defer removal immediately”


and,

“where the person is detained, make sure this development is considered in relation to any decision to continue with detention”.

In other words, in their current guidance on the subjects that we are concerned with, the Government regard these Rule 39 rulings as binding. That is what the guidance tells the members of the public who have bothered to look at the Government’s own website this evening, as I have.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

These measures will leave victims in destitution, unable to escape the abuses that they have been subject to. They will drive more men, women, children, young people and families into destitution. Frankly, it is a shocking change in public policy and shamefully undermines a policy of which we were all so proud.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alton unfortunately cannot be with us today and has asked me to speak to a number of amendments in his name which I have signed—and one which I have not because there was no room left. I will be very happy to do so. I pay tribute to the enormous work he has put into this Bill on the issues that have arisen, including those mentioned so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

At the beginning of his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned the absence of an impact assessment and our ongoing interest in whether it will arrive in due course and, if so, whether it will be too late to have any impact. If ever there was a series of amendments for which the impact assessment’s absence has importance, it is this. I hope to demonstrate why in a few moments.

I will highlight the potentially devastating impact that the Bill will have on not only survivors of modern slavery but our ability as a country proudly to bring to justice those who are guilty of modern slavery offences. There is a paramount public interest here and internationally in those cases being prosecuted. If you ask a prosecutor how best to prepare a case, the answers are very simple. First, you need co-operative witnesses; for that, you need witnesses to feel safe to provide the evidence. That is when they will come to court, where they will be protected by judges behind screens or by other special arrangements and produce an overwhelming prosecution case. Anything that any Government do to inhibit the prosecution of modern slavery cases is not just regrettable but a manifestly dishonourable disgrace.

The amendments seek to put in the Bill obligations on the Secretary of State to carry out and present before Parliament and an appointed Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner reports and assessments on the potential impacts of this Bill in relation to equality, human rights and compliance. Furthermore, they require detailed information pertaining to each country or territory listed in Schedule 1 to be laid before Parliament in relation to the practical implications, including but not limited to the effect on modern slavery prosecutions.

One is entitled to assume—I ask the Minister to confirm that this assumption is accurate in this case—that, in the preparation of the list in Schedule 1, the Government have carried out due diligence on the 57 countries listed as safe territories to which a person may be removed. Was the placing of a country on the list in Schedule 1 preceded by consultation? Who should that consultation have been with? Let us start with the ambassadors and high commissioners representing the United Kingdom in those countries.

We all know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is well staffed with people here in London who are experts in and who man desks on those countries. Were they consulted before the names of those countries were added to the list in Schedule 1? I ask this question because, having been through the list with a fine-toothed comb looking at every single country on it, I cannot accept that whatever inquiries were made could really be described as diligent. Due diligence in the world in which many of us who work in the professions operate is an absolute given in every instance. I will give your Lordships some examples before I turn to my reductio ad absurdum—if I can be allowed that phrase—of this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The Minister is making a very bold proposition when he says that Article 30 gives the Government an excuse to ignore ECAT. Can he give us examples of public order events which justify that bold, and in my view unjustifiable, statement?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It was Article 13(3). The events which the Government say warrant the grounds of public order which prevent observance of the 30-day reflection and recovery period are the conditions which I identified earlier in relation to the pressure placed on public services and the threat to life arising from the dangerous channel crossings.

I do not propose to address all the amendments individually, suffice to say that where the Secretary of State is satisfied that an individual is participating in an investigation or criminal proceedings relating to their alleged exploitation, and considers it necessary for them to be present in the UK to provide that co-operation, and considers that their co-operation outweighs any significant risk of harm to the public they may pose, that individual will be exempt from the disqualification. This allows the Government to protect against the threat to public order arising from the current circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, while also ensuring that investigations can be progressed to bring perpetrators to justice. By one means or another, the amendments seek to negate, or at least roll back, the intended effect of the provisions in Clause 21 and subsequent clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

The provisions in Clause 21 are a necessary and core part of this Bill if it is to achieve its purpose of deterring illegal entry into the UK. We recognise the exceptional nature of these provisions, but the way to acknowledge that is to include a sunset clause in the Bill, as we have done. This does not put barriers in the way of the successful implementation of the Bill. The sooner we can stop the boats, the sooner we can review the necessity of these provisions. On that basis, I commend Clause 21 to the Committee and invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he do the usual thing, which is to answer reasonable questions that were asked of him, particularly the question I asked about the due diligence carried out in preparation of Schedule 1 and how advice was obtained as to whether it was right to put almost entirely unqualified entries into that schedule?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I had in mind the sage words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in the House last week. As the noble Lord will recall, the origins of Schedule 1 were canvassed at length by the Committee in the previous group. The countries listed in the schedule are an amalgam of previous pieces of legislation where the safety of those countries has been established in that legislation.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Certain things will happen when the Bill goes through; the system described within it will take effect. I assure the noble Lord that this is something that the Home Office expects to happen—that is, that returns will be effected in accordance with the duty imposed on the Secretary of State.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

If the impact assessment is to be provided in a timely way—or if not—will the Minister ensure that it contains an estimate or assessment of the number of people who would have been granted asylum but will not be because they are excluded as a result of the blanket effects of the Bill?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is not for me to dictate what is in the impact assessment. The department will provide the impact assessment in due course—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will come back to the noble Lords in due course, but I need to make progress.

The broken asylum system costs the UK £3 billion a year, and that is rising. There seems to be an impression that, without the Bill, those costs will not continue to rise at an alarming rate year on year. Doing nothing is not an option.

In conclusion, I agree with the noble Lord that returns agreements have a place, and we will seek to negotiate these where appropriate. By their nature, any such negotiations involve two parties. The UK cannot compel other countries to enter into such agreements; they are a two-way process. Moreover, it will not enhance such negotiations to require their status to be set out in a three-monthly report to be laid before Parliament.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I ask the noble Lord to bear with me for a moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

May we return to something that the noble Lord said a few moments ago? He said that it is not for him to dictate what appears in an impact assessment. If it is not for a Minister—either this Minister or one of his noble or honourable friends, either in this place or another—to dictate what appears in an impact assessment, for whom is it to determine what appears in one?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I will endeavour not to repeat some of the arguments that have already been put forward; it is a challenge that most of us have failed, and I will probably fail it too.

In the Bill, there is an unprecedented step that it would make any asylum application made by someone who arrives irregularly in the UK permanently inadmissible. If declared inadmissible, they cannot subsequently enter the UK’s asylum process. That means that they are out of the system for ever, simply because of the method by which they have arrived in this country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said that the Bill

“would amount to an asylum ban”,

as it would the extinguish

“the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how compelling their claim may be”.

The UNHCR goes on to say that, if other countries followed suit, we would see an end to refugee protection. That is a pretty dismal comment, but I have no reason to doubt that the UNHCR is accurate in its assessment. I repeat something which should be beyond argument: the UNHCR knows about the 1951 convention, and surely the UNHCR must be seen as the guardian of that convention. So if the Government are going to disagree with the UNHCR, they have to be on pretty firm grounds before they do so.

I will not repeat the conditions stated in Clause 2—we are familiar with them—but I will note that, even if people cannot be removed from the UK, their claims will still be permanently inadmissible. That is a significant change from the current inadmissibility scheme put in place after the UK’s exit from the EU as it also left the Dublin system. Under this scheme, if the UK Government believe that somebody did claim or could or should have claimed asylum in another country, their asylum claim could be potentially deemed inadmissible. However, the current scheme requires another country to have agreed to take the person before the inadmissibility decision can be made. The Home Office guidance on the inadmissibility procedures says that getting an agreement should take a maximum of six months in most cases. We are in a situation where there can be no progress for those individuals, except in this very negative sense.

The Home Office’s own statistics—I rely on the Refugee Council for some of this information—show how rare an occurrence this is. Between January 2021 and the end of December 2022

“of 18,494 applications that were potentially inadmissible only 83 inadmissibility decisions have been served”,

with only 21 removals. As a result, nearly 10,000 people have had their claims subsequently admitted into the UK’s asylum system following an unnecessary delay.

This Bill changes the current inadmissibility system by removing the requirement to have a removal agreement in place with another country before an inadmissibility decision can be reached. Instead, it makes any claim automatically and permanently inadmissible. It does not give the Home Secretary any discretion to consider the claim, and indeed the noble Lord in the previous speech challenged the Home Secretary’s lack of discretion in these procedures.

The Bill does very little to make it likely that more people will be able to be removed. Clause 5 allows people from 32 countries designated as safe countries whose asylum applications have been ruled inadmissible to be returned to their home country. Nationals of all other countries outside this list cannot be returned to their home country. This includes someone whose claim is highly likely to be successful, such as an Afghan or a Syrian, or someone whose claim could potentially be refused if it was actually processed. Instead, they can be removed only to one of the 57 third countries listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill. However, the agreement with Rwanda is the only removal agreement that the UK has in place that includes third country nationals, and the legal and tactical challenges faced by that scheme are well documented. Even if it becomes operational, it will not be possible to remove the thousands of people whose claims are deemed inadmissible to Rwanda.

We are in a real difficulty with this situation. The Home Office has yet to set out how many people it believes will be impacted by the Bill, as we have already discussed. However, given the current 0.7% success rate of removing people under the inadmissibility process, the Refugee Council estimates that at the end of the third year of the Bill between 161,000 and 192,000 people will have had their asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not yet have been removed. They will be unable to have their asylum claims processed, and therefore unable to work, and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation indefinitely, which is predicted to cost between £5 billion and £6 billion in the first three years. They will be stuck in a permanent limbo. I hope the Minister can explain how they can get out of that limbo, unless the Government suddenly produce a range of countries with which return agreements have been agreed.

This is a pretty miserable clause in a miserable Bill. I believe that this amendment could go some little way towards making the Bill somewhat less bad than it is.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I have signed some amendments which were tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, who has asked me to apologise for his absence today. I am not going to speak to those in any detail because, as is typical of my noble and learned friend, the explanatory statements which he has added to those amendments say it all, and make them very easy to understand.

What concerns me about this debate is that it has a degree of abstraction which perhaps conceals what really lies in front of the debates we are having. Recently, I went to a meeting to discuss asylum and refugee status in one of our cities. Present at that meeting was a woman in her 30s, with three children, who is living in a hostel in that city. She has now been waiting for 10 years—with her children, some born after her arrival here—to know the result of her wish to be treated as an asylum seeker.

The Minister earlier today—it seems like many hours ago but it is probably only about two and a half—referred, when he was answering an intervention, to an emergency having occurred. If that is an emergency—because this Government have been in place for well over 10 years—then it makes the creation of a baby elephant seem like the speed of sound. It has happened on their watch. Why? In truth—and it is long before the Minister became involved in these issues and became a valued Member of your Lordships’ House—they did not do what they needed to do to anticipate what was going to happen. That is why cases such as that of the woman I referred to took place.

In another city, I met a young man, now in his mid-20s, who had arrived in the United Kingdom illegally in the back of a lorry. He climbed out of the lorry and had nowhere to go. He slept in a doorway and the next day he did what he was told was a good thing to do and went to the local police station and asked the police for help. As it happens, they were very sympathetically disposed to him. He was then about 17 and a half. He was refused permission to remain in this country and he was refused asylum. He appealed and his appeal was allowed. I am delighted to say that the reason he came to see me was that he is about to start a career as a barrister. This is obviously a very good thing for anyone to do, as I would say, and I know a number of noble and learned friends, including the Minister, will agree with me when I say that. I am trying to discourage him, as a sort of mentor, from doing only asylum work because there is so much more to do as a barrister. I may be winning that battle. That is the actuality we are dealing with in these cases.

What we are facing here, to use the Minister’s words, is apparently an emergency to oust the use of judicial review. Before I got up to speak, we heard three really superb speeches. I do not want to repeat everything that was said but I agree with it all. All those speeches demonstrated, I suggest, that the ouster of judicial review, as has been the approach of the courts and indeed of Parliament over the decades, should happen only very rarely. It is not unheard of, but it should happen only very rarely when the necessity to oust judicial review is demonstrated and, above all, when it is fair and proportional to do so. Surely the ouster of judicial review is neither fair nor proportional in a situation in which we find many cases coming before the courts but it is not the fault of the real people who want to go to those courts. Let us not forget that a very large number of that cohort are allowed asylum and refugee status when they go to the courts. This is not an unworthy cohort going to court for the sake of it; people often win their cases. Do we in your Lordships’ House, with so many experienced people, particularly those who have seen the courts in action, really want to oust that activity of the courts?

Let us look at the figures for a moment. I know that there are many cases in tribunals. I have never had the advantage of serving as a member of the asylum et cetera tribunal or Upper Tribunal but I have had the privilege of serving as a deputy judge in the Administrative Court for many years, dealing with many asylum cases. I think everybody imagines—I wish to disabuse the non-lawyers in the Committee—that these cases are all run into the ground by long-winded lawyers such as myself who try to make the cases run for ever and ever in order to enhance our fees; the sort of Daily Mail “sidebar of shame” view of what lawyers do.

Let me tell your Lordships what happens in the Administrative Court. A judge turns up for a day’s sitting and often starts with paper applications. About 11% of the cases have already been filtered out as being totally without merit and do not even come before the judge doing the paper applications—the paper apps, as they are called. The judge then spends the day in his or her judge’s room dealing with the paper apps, usually dealing with about 12 in a day—maybe a few less, maybe a few more. They take therefore very little time at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, before we move on to the interesting dinnertime discussion, I just want to raise a point as a non-lawyer about Amendment 20, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Its purpose is to

“enable an application for judicial review to be made while the applicant is in the UK”.

We had a very interesting point from the noble Lord, Lord German, about what he described, fairly accurately, as Daily Mail sidebar accusations about the nature of judicial review. It was very helpful to have that short seminar from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on what actually happens in the Administrative Courts and how it is not a question of lawyers making lots of money out of rather dodgy cases. I think he is right. Although I have never been to the Administrative Court, but I am sure he reflected that very faithfully.

Surely, however, if this amendment is passed, it will drive a coach and horses through the main purpose of this Bill, which is to deter people from crossing the channel in small boats. If you then give them the opportunity when arriving in this country in a small boat of immediately seeking judicial review, and that is in the Bill designed to stop them coming across the channel, will that not destroy the whole purpose of the Bill? I merely put that question as a non-lawyer; it seems to me inimical to the very heart of the Bill, whatever one’s view.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I just want to ask him this question. Would he be happy about legislation being passed that meant that people who had a justifiable claim to asylum were never allowed to pursue that claim to asylum—that is, a justifiable claim under international and existing United Kingdom law?

[Lord Horam (Con)]

No, I am just saying that if the amendment were accepted, it would be entirely inimical to the purpose of the Bill.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

6: Clause 2, page 3, line 26, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the date on which this section comes into force”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the duty to deport in Clause 2 does not apply retrospectively to those who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom before the Bill comes into force.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6, which stands in my name. There are some other amendments associated with it. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton for putting their names to Amendment 6. I am also grateful to the many well-known organisations that have made representations on these matters, including Justice and a number of others; some of them will recognise their views in what I am about to say.

These amendments are about a tension between what is fair and proportionate and what is unfair and disproportionate. Despite the fact that all those who have signed this amendment are lawyers, I do not use those terms in a narrow legal sense but as ordinary language, which I invite your Lordships to use as the template for your judgment.

I suggest that the Government are attempting to negate the legality of the exercise of rights permitted by UK law long after those rights have been exercised, and that to do so is unfair and disproportionate. We had a little discussion about strangeness in judgments that were allegedly made. In relation to these amendments, the only organisation that is doing something strange is the Government, because they are doing something that is very unusual and that falls straight into the literal definition of strange, although it is not unprecedented. The whole issue is about proportionality, as I have said, and Governments unfortunately do strange things fairly often.

These amendments deal with parts of the Bill that are retrospective in effect. Retrospectivity is contrary to the legal certainty of which we are proud and other principles that underpin our law. The amendments deal with Clauses 2, 4, 5, 15 and 21. Clause 2(3) means that the duty to deport would apply to an individual who entered or arrived in the United Kingdom on or after 7 March this year. The normal course of events is that a Bill comes into force when it is passed—at that moment when we hear that it has had Royal Assent and has gone through any other provisions contained in it as to when it comes into force. But this one is retrospective.

Clause 4(7) would disapply asylum or human rights claims which were made on or after 7 March 2023 but were simply awaiting a decision. There you are, awaiting a decision and, suddenly, the possibility of a decision is simply removed from you by the diktat of government.

Clause 5(12) and (14) would extend the removal provisions applied to those who had made an asylum or human rights claim on or after 7 March 2023 but were awaiting a decision. Clause 15(4) would give the Home Secretary retrospective power over the accommodation of unaccompanied migrant children—a very dramatic piece of retrospectivity.

Clause 21(8) to (10) would allow the Home Secretary retrospectively to revoke limited relief to remain, granted lawfully, to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, thereby undermining commitments made by Theresa May—she was referred to earlier—when she was Prime Minister. They were very carefully considered, and rightly much vaunted, provisions to protect people from modern slavery and human trafficking.

I think we have already heard today, and I have certainly heard it at other times, that the modern slavery provisions have been abused. Yes, to an extent they have, but I would challenge anyone who has experience in the law to find any provision of a comparable nature that has not been abused and misused. That is what courts are there for: to deal with the misuse and abuse of such provisions.

The point about legal certainty is that it requires that individuals know what their rights are and how they can be implemented and enforced. This is especially important at a time when, as we have heard repeatedly from the Minister, the Government have decided that the UK’s international law obligations are dispensable and that the fundamental rights of individuals can be cast aside. The importance of legal certainty, and having very rare retrospectivity in our legal system and our common-law traditions, has been stressed repeatedly by the senior courts.

--- Later in debate ---

Both amendments would remove clarity from the Bill, which will make matters clear to those to whom the provisions apply. The Bill aims to deter and prevent. A start date of the Bill’s First Reading is not only clear but fair and proportionate. Those coming to this country in breach of immigration control rules—often from France—know where they stand and what provisions will apply to them after 7 March. More importantly, the people of this country, who want the borders controlled, will see that no matter how protracted the gap between First Reading and the Bill becoming law, the arrangements under it will apply from 7 March.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

The noble Baroness has had quite a lot to say today about the wishes of the people of this country. Would she like to tell us what her evidence is that the wish of the people of this country is that people should be retrospectively affected by legislation of which they plainly had no awareness at the time when it had its First Reading?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. As far as I can see, the Bill was published on 7 March. It was very well publicised at the time. It is designed to deter—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

In Calais?

[Baroness Lawlor]

I think the noble Lord is not aware of the very good access to news which people coming to this country have—and which people traffickers have. It was no surprise that this Bill had its First Reading on 7 March.

I conclude on a point made earlier. This is not a Bill against asylum seekers; it is a measure to deter and prevent those coming to this country by unsafe and unlawful routes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

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

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the noble Lord stands up again, I feel I should bring this debate to a close. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly those who supported the amendments in my name. A number of other very interesting issues have been raised. I have no doubt that we will be returning to a number of them on Report; I certainly will.

The reasons given by the Minister for what he recognises is the exceptional course of retrospectivity—I am using his words—involved conjecture: a conjecture that a very small change in the numbers, for whatever reason, of people coming on boats shows that the retrospectivity is working. I have been a Silk for 39 years. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we have probably met more criminals than the rest of this Committee added together. My observation would be a rather less naive one than that made by the Minister. Criminals are infinitely adaptable. If the Government think that the boats are being stopped, it is not evidence that fewer people are coming into this country, because there are different ways and means of doing it.

From what we have heard today—maybe on Report we will hear something different—I really believe that the case for exceptionality is far from proved. I take the view, therefore, that we will have to come back to these subjects. I urge the Government to meet noble Lords who have spoken in these debates before Report so that we can see whether there is some common ground we can find that will make this a better Bill rather than a battleground in your Lordships’ House. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 4 in this group, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I have also added my name to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I have some thoughts on Amendments 1, 3 and 5 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Amendment 84, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, is partly duplicative of mine, but focuses specifically on international anti-trafficking provisions. In as far as it adds the EU anti-trafficking directive to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, I support it; however, I think we should settle on a single, holistic list of obligations that, crucially, includes the precious refugee convention and its principles of non-penalisation, non-discrimination and non-refoulement, which the Government seem so intent on violating by this obscenity of a Bill.

I turn briefly to the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I thank him for his explanation earlier. Contrary to the explanatory statement for Amendment 1, I cannot quite agree that this does anything for so-called legal certainty. To the contrary, it seems a rather circular amendment, in defining “illegal migration” according to the conditions for removal in the Government’s own Clause 2. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested in her very pithy intervention, as a matter of international law, someone who qualifies for protection under the 1951 convention can never have been illegal.

Noble Lords who have come to the Committee sensibly armed with copies of the Bill might care to compare its Short and Long Titles. It has become quite fashionable in recent years for Short Titles to become creatures of political spin, but parliamentary counsel guard the Long Titles—so crucial for scope, for example —rather more jealously. While the Short Title is the Illegal Migration Bill, and our graveyard humour alights on the adjective accurately describing the second noun, the Long Title refers instead to

“persons who have entered or arrived in breach of immigration control”.

As the refugee convention was effectively the world’s apology for the Holocaust and the insufficient and inconsistent protection given to those attempting to escape the Nazis, the convention always contemplated some genuine refugees having to escape persecution and enter places of safety by clandestine means and in breach of ordinary controls.

That is why

“in breach of immigration control”

is accurate and appropriate for the Long Title and “Illegal Migration” is not appropriate in the context of refugees, who, as a matter of declaratory law, will always have been refugees, even before they were given their status—hence the excellent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

The probing Amendment 3 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, helps to draw attention to contradictions in the Government’s public positions around the ECHR compatibility of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out, the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the tin indicates one thing—that no statement that the Bill is compatible can be made—but aspects of the ECHR memorandum of ingredients suggest another. However, the medicine prescribed by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, is far too weak a remedy. When a Government are so intent on violating rights to protection from torture, slavery and death, allowing the same Government to issue guidance on interpreting their offending legislation is like handing burglars the keys to the house. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right to seek to remove Clause 1(5), which seeks to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which, as we have heard, requires that legislation be interpreted compatibly with the European convention so far as possible. That is why I added my name to her Amendment 2.

Amendment 4 in the names of the quartet of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and myself goes further. It does not just remove subsection (5); it replaces the whole of Clause 1 with the requirement that this legislation shall not require violation of any of the key international legal obligations that we fear would otherwise be violated by it, namely the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. I am very proud to stand with noble Lords from four corners of the Committee whose experience includes high-level legal adjudication, law enforcement, and Home Office ministerial duty. What brings the senior judge, police officer, Conservative former Immigration Minister, and human rights lawyer together around the amendment is our desire that the United Kingdom remains committed to the international rule of law.

As we heard, last week, alongside other European leaders, the Prime Minister signed the Reykjavík declaration. It begins:

“We, Heads of State and Government, have gathered in Reykjavík on 16 and 17 May 2023 to stand united against Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and to give further priority and direction to the Council of Europe’s work … We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems. We reaffirm our primary obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as well as our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties”.


Mr Sunak said:

“We remain a proud European nation. And we must work together to defend the values we all hold so dear … Because we know what we can achieve together. Just look at this Council’s extraordinary legacy: protecting human rights, abolishing the death penalty in Europe, supporting media freedom and championing democracy across Central and Eastern Europe after the Cold War”.


Those fine words from the Prime Minister must not be contradicted by the Home Secretary’s illegal Bill.

Noble Lords will no doubt explore the many violations of our common and constitutional law tradition, as well as international law, via the anxious scrutiny of this Committee. At the very least, the Bill violates Articles 2, 3, 4 and 14 of the European convention in failing to protect victims of torture and trafficking and those at risk of death, and in allowing the Government to pick and choose which refugees from different countries it finds palatable from time to time. The Bill fails to protect stateless people and children in the context of its provisions on removal, detention, accommodation and age assessment. In the words of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, it amounts to

“an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be”.

This must be one of the strongest condemnations of a democratic and rights-respecting nation ever uttered by the commissioner.

If Ministers seek to argue that the Bill does not violate these various linchpin treaties, many of which the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating, they should have no problem with the requirement that the Bill be read in that way by Ministers, officials and the courts. If, instead, Ministers wish to argue that it is time to renegotiate these obligations, fair enough. Let them try to do so with such reserves of soft power as they think we have left. In the meantime, in contrast with Russia and other pariah states, let them respect the law.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I support her Amendment 4 for the following reason. If I was a person in a country far from here who faced torture and very serious discrimination, possibly for his or her political views or opposition to the Government, or possibly for their sexual orientation which is an issue in quite a number of these cases, I might look up what the United Kingdom stands for in international law before I make my decision as to whether to seek asylum in the United Kingdom or some other country. And what would I read? With a couple of clicks on the internet, I would read exactly what is set out, or aspired to, in Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Baroness. In my view, that is the principled position to take.

I also understand completely—I think—the views expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope when, if I can be permitted to use a little bit of transatlantic language, he pointed out certain uncertainties about the Bill in the speech with which he opened the first debate.

I want to challenge the Minister to do something he has failed to do—I say this with respect, because he is known for his clarity in this House. I challenge him to return to the very first page of the whole Bill, where the statement under Section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act is set out. The first sentence reads:

“I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes … to proceed with the Bill”.


Does that mean, “I don’t know if the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Does it mean, “I know that it is not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”? Or does it mean that some parts of it are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and others are not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right; it has no legal effect. Can I put this another way? The Minister can make a Section 19(1)(b) statement and the court can find that the Act is compatible. The Minister can make Section 19(1)(a) statement and the court can find that it is not.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the noble Lord not agree that the Section 19(1)(b) statement on this Bill is very different from the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the Communications Bill? I am sure that he has looked at it. Secretary of State Tessa Jowell made the following statement:

“I am unable (but only because of Clause 309) to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Communications Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.


By making that statement, Tessa Jowell made it clear that in a massive Bill there was only one clause that she could not make such a statement about. In effect, she stated that everything apart from Clause 309 was compliant with the Human Rights Act. That is how it was understood; we can all read the debates. Is it not incumbent upon the Government, when they make a statement as vague as that on this Bill, to explain what is and what is not compatible with the Human Rights Act?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord is making a political point. It may be good politics or bad politics, but whether the Government want to do that or not, my focus is on Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which is very clear:

“A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading … (a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights … or (b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”.


We could have a nice debate about whether the statement in the Communications Act 2003 was consistent with Section 19, but that is not my point. My point today is simply that we cannot legitimately criticise the Minister for making precisely the statement that Parliament told him to make in Section (19)(1)(b) if he cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am reluctant to give the noble Lord a private lecture on this, but I will set out a very short answer. I will be blunt but, I hope, legally accurate. The short answer to the noble Lord’s question is yes; we could do it. International treaties are not part of our domestic law. As far as our domestic courts are concerned—please let me finish and I will give way—if we were to legislate completely contrary to an international treaty, our domestic courts would have to abide by the Act of Parliament, because that is domestic law. Of course, that would put the UK in breach of the international treaty. It is not something I would recommend, but the noble Lord asked me a direct question about how the two interrelate, and that is a necessary consequence of being a dualist state. International treaties are not part of domestic law, unless and until they are incorporated.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

This could develop into a really interesting argument, I am afraid—between lawyers. The noble Lord just referred to the dualist theory, which of course is very important, but, in reality, international treaties are not usually entered into legislation because they are made under the royal prerogative. But that does not make them any less binding.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I started my remarks by saying that international treaties are extremely important and that we should always legislate consistently with our international obligations, except in the most unforeseen and unusual circumstances. But that is not the question I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. We are a dualist state. That is why we should object to these amendments, which seek to incorporate treaties by the back door.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I was indeed about to mention her in my next sentence. Let me address that point and repeat what I said earlier. The phrase “illegal migration” in the Short Title of the Bill refers to the fact that the act of entering otherwise than in accordance with immigration controls was criminalised by an Act passed by this House and the other place in 2022. That is why it is correct to describe such people as “illegal migrants”—because they did not enter in accordance with immigration controls. That is the long and the short of it. The interpretation of Article 31 is irrelevant as regards that point of certainty.

I turn now to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. This amendment seeks to strike out subsection (5), which disapplies Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The disapplication of Section 3 will ensure that the Bill’s provisions will be interpreted to meet the legislative intent of Parliament, rather than the strained interpretations imposed by the courts to achieve compatibility with convention rights. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wolfson, King’s Counsel, pointed out, Section 3 is an unusual provision in UK law and there is, in principle, no reason why it cannot be excluded in cases like this.

It is our view that Parliament and the Government are better suited to address the sensitive policy issues involved in this legislation. It is therefore only right that Section 3, which requires the court to interpret the provisions to achieve compatibility with convention rights, must be disapplied so that courts interpret the law in accordance with the purpose of the Bill. Through this, we are ensuring that the balance between our domestic institutions is right and that Parliament’s intent is clear to the courts.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, explained, Amendment 3 flows from the recent report of the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful to that committee for its scrutiny of the Bill. We are studying its report carefully and will respond in full ahead of Report. As for the genesis of the amendment, the noble and learned Lord explained that the Constitution Committee considered that more explanation was needed around the Section 19(1)(b) statement that I made on the introduction of the Bill in this House.

Notwithstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quoted from my Second Reading speech on this issue, I reiterate the point I made at that stage: a Section 19(1)(b) statement means not that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with the convention rights, only that we cannot be certain that they are compatible. The assertion suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his speech a moment ago, that the statement amounts to a concession that measures in the Bill are incompatible, is not the case. The purpose of Section 19, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out, is that it is a statement that the provisions of the Bill are incompatible with convention rights and we cannot be certain that they are compatible. It is of course a measure in a piece of legislation passed by the last Labour Government and therefore something that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, would no doubt place great weight on. Those are the terms that we find in Section 19 of the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister not think that it might at least be a courtesy to the Committee to set out which of the provisions, in his view and that of the Home Secretary, are or are not compatible with the convention? That would help us to determine the quality of the legislation that is proposed.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will come to address the issues of the broad applicability of the Section 19(1)(b) statement. There is no requirement in the Act for a statement to identify any particular section. Indeed, I do not want to wade into the waters that were nearly ventured into during the interventions on my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s speech about whether the Section 19(1)(b) statement in relation to the Communications Bill, as it then was, was in accordance with the statute.

In any event, I return to the principle of Section 19(1)(b) statements. It is right to say that they have been made by Governments of all stripes, not least in the Communications Bill, as we heard earlier in the debate, but also by the coalition Government and by Nick Clegg in the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson rightly indicated, issuing a Section 19(1)(b) statement is a legitimate choice given to Ministers under the Human Rights Act. Why else would the Act provide for such a course?

As I have said, previous Governments have issued such statements, and clearly that has not caused our international reputation to collapse. More broadly, I encourage the Committee to approach questions of international reputation with a proper perspective. The world can be in no doubt that we are defenders of rights and liberty, the most obvious example being our leading support for Ukraine.

Requiring guidance to be approved by Parliament on how the Bill’s provisions are to be interpreted within the meaning of the Human Rights Act is unnecessary. On 7 March the Government published a memorandum addressing issues arising under the ECHR, and a supplementary memorandum was published in April in relation to the government amendments tabled for Report in the Commons. These memoranda set out a provision-by-provision ECHR analysis, so I submit that the Government’s position is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, will find the answers to his questions about what sits behind the Section 19(1)(b) statement in those memoranda.

It will undoubtedly be necessary to provide Home Office staff, immigration officers and others with appropriate guidance to support the implementation of the Bill. It would not be appropriate for such routine operational guidance on the implementation of a particular Act to be subject to parliamentary approval.

National Crime Agency Investigation: Javad Marandi

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am going to repeat what I have said: there is a long-standing principle, first introduced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, that if you are eligible to vote for a party in an election, you are also eligible to donate to that party. That includes overseas electors, as noble Lords will be aware, with reference to the Elections Act. Coming back to that Act, I remind the House that the Government have already taken significant steps to strengthen the integrity of our elections and update our electoral law. This was done to ensure that our democracy remains secure, modern, transparent and fair. I could go on in considerable detail about the Elections Act, but it has been much debated in this House.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Is not the case referred to in this Question an illustration of the opacity, rather than transparency, of the financial system relating to political parties? Is it not very important that we should put all protections in place to ensure that political parties have a well-understood and common system of ensuring that donations, in particular those emanating from foreign powers, are dealt with in a proper way? In those circumstances, would the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the amendment in lieu—replacing Lords Amendment 22—which I tabled last Friday for the next stage of the National Security Bill?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would be very happy indeed to meet the noble Lord to discuss his amendment. I remind noble Lords that, as I say, any suspected breaches of the law are a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police. It is not appropriate to comment on individual cases or ongoing investigations, but if a donation is from a permissible donor, it is for the recipient to decide whether or not they want to accept that donation.

Migrants: Housing

Lord Carlile of Berriew Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Lord well knows that it is not the Government’s practice to share working policy assumptions in relation to these issues. As I said, the effect of the Bill will be to deliver a deterrent effect; fewer people will cross the channel and therefore fewer people will need to be detained.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister give a clear undertaking to this House, without any equivocation, that all measures for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees will be in compliance with current UK law and current UK international treaty obligations?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Government will always obey the domestic law.