Asylum Seekers: Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Cashman]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to maintain, and (2) to enhance, the protection of asylum seekers who would risk ill-treatment if returned to a country of origin because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

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

The Government are committed to delivering an asylum system that continues to protect individuals from persecution, including that based on sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, we remain determined to tackle illegal migration so that we deter individuals from risking their lives making dangerous channel crossings.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I ask this Question in relation to assurances given during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill through your Lordships’ House, in particular on LGBT+ asylum seekers. I remain deeply concerned given the recent statements made by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in the United Kingdom and the United States and the misrepresentation—indeed, the belittling —of the discrimination experienced by women and LGBT+ people, which, I believe, undermine the assurances given. Therefore, having given the Minister sight of my Question because I believe that we need to detoxify this issue, I ask the Government for an unequivocal reassurance that they will abide by the commitments made to this House and will maintain the principle of assessing the risk of persecution faced by women and LGBT+ people, which is established in law and which I believe forms the basis of a humane, comprehensive asylum policy.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me sight of his Question in advance. I can assure noble Lords that the cornerstone of the asylum consideration process remains the requirement to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 refugee convention and enshrined in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. There has been no downgrading of the threshold. We do not return asylum seekers to their home countries if their sexuality or gender would place them at risk of future serious harm or persecution. This is of course the principle derived from the case of HJ (Iran), which we discussed during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill. Nor would we relocate someone to a safe third country if there was a real risk of their suffering serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom.

Creative and Cultural Industries: Impact of Visa and Immigration Policies

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid, timid as I am to disagree with my noble friend, that is just wrong. There are no issues here. In 2022, we issued 6,498 creative worker visas, of which 180 were issued to EEA nationals. Over the last decade, the number of creative visas issued has remained consistently high compared to other temporary work routes, such as the charity and religious worker visa routes. While the volumes fell during the pandemic, as one might expect, they have returned to high volumes. I suggest that the high volumes and low barriers to entry are a symbol of the excellence of our own success in the areas of work to which these visas relate.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry not to give way to the noble Lord.

The Minister’s assurances roll over the Dispatch Box like treacle. Is he not aware that organisations as diverse as BECTU, the technicians’ trade union, and Barbican, the arts centre, are making exactly the same complaints as his noble friend just made? Is not the root cause of this that Brexit, far from being oven-ready, is half-baked and has left our creative industries in particular bereft of support?

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Why is that important? That is important because we do not want to reach a situation with a constitutional debate about whether the approval of Schedule 1, with Rwanda in it, means that the Government can say that, whatever the courts decide, Parliament, having legislative sovereignty under our constitution, has determined that it is a safe place, and so that country must be identified as one which is unsafe, unless and until some litigation is found—if it is ever found—in favour of the Government in relation to Rwanda, and that may never happen. On that basis, I will seek to press my amendment.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to the amendment in lieu, in Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. Taking what the Government have said at face value on their protections of LGBT people, I ask them to accept the amendment, because it reinforces the principle of the protection of LGBT people and others.

On reflection, I point out that, of the 58 countries that currently criminalise homosexuality—and they are on the increase, as we have seen with Uganda—over 50% are in the Commonwealth. They are countries with which we are more than likely to reach safe third country agreements. Furthermore, 11 countries currently have the death penalty, and there is further agitation for the increase of that across other states. I therefore argue that the amendment is proportionate and necessary.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on getting a concession from the Government and understand the point he made with his Motion, which I understand he will not move. I am pleased that it has been accommodated.

The noble Lord, Lord German, explained his amendment extremely well; it provides a backstop for the taxpayer to stop people going into legal limbo, being a burden on the taxpayer indefinitely and getting into the grey area which so many in this situation are in right now. As he said, it is totally in line with the Government’s expectations of the Bill, so if the noble Lord chooses to press his Motion F1 then we will support it.

My noble friend Lord Cashman summed up the support for Motion G1, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. If he chooses to move it, we will support him. As my noble friend said, it reinforces the principle of protection for LGBT people. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Schedule 1 should not provide a veneer of respectability to certain countries that are currently on it, so we would support him.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I have reread the debate on 9 December and he does not give a policy in it. I ask him to reread it himself, come back to the House and tell us what that policy is. Because it is not there; it is a non-policy. His policy for other people to have policies is not a policy.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

Uganda: LGBT People

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord, whom I commend for his work on AIDS and the like. He is right: the Act is one of the most regressive pieces of modern legislation against the LGBT+ community in the world. Consensual same-sex sexual acts carry a sentence of life imprisonment. I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s remarks about the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who I believe wrote to the Archbishop of Uganda, Stephen Kaziimba, to express his grief and dismay at the Church of Uganda’s support for the Bill and was subsequently criticised for doing so. Kaziimba went on to describe the Archbishop as being ill informed. Our ODA efforts in Uganda are primarily to drive clean, green and inclusive growth and mutual prosperity but also to improve the resilience, and defend the rights, of vulnerable people. I very much hope that they will continue to pursue those objectives.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and I welcome the response thus far from the Minister. However, the assurance I seek from—

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I am very glad—

[Noble Lords]

Lord Cashman!

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I sense that the House would like me to continue. I seek assurances from the Minister that our high commission is in contact with and supporting Sexual Minorities Uganda, particularly Dr Frank Mugisha, its executive director, and other human rights defenders. Although this is not his department, can the Minister look into and ensure that the FCDO is not funding organisations that are campaigning across that part of Africa to remove LGBT rights? Given the debate on, and the amendment we recently passed to, the Illegal Migration Bill, will he and the Home Office ensure safe and legal routes for LGBT+ people and their human rights defenders?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord raises some very good points. He will not be surprised to know that I do not know the precise answers on the organisations funded by the FCDO, but I will take that back and look into it. I can confirm that the high commissioner continues to meet a wide range of stakeholders, across both the Government and elsewhere, to express the UK’s concerns. The subject of safe and legal routes will come up later, but I hear what the noble Lord said.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

We do not go so far as the JCHR has. We are seeking to qualify the power to at least make it clear that it cannot be exercised in a way to remove from the list any of the examples that are set out in Clause 38(4). We assume that that is not the intention, but it is a possibility because of the wide wording of the provision as it stands. The safer course is to make it absolutely clear that the power cannot be exercised in that way. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to give us a little more explanation as to the circumstances in which the power would be exercised and the extent of it. If it is not the intention to remove any of the examples set out in subsection (4), I would have thought that a proviso to make the exact position entirely clear would be perfectly acceptable. That is the point we make in Amendment 110.

[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.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

What empirical evidence—not mere assumptions but facts—have the Government based their equality impact assessment on? The policies that we are now dealing with are based on their facts and their equality impact assessment. Therefore, the Committee must understand whether it is assumption or fact. The provision for young people being in this Bill, based on an assumption from the Government that it will stop them coming here, does not seem to stand up to the evidence when it is examined by others.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Touhig, I was not going to speak to this group of amendments because the arguments have been put so brilliantly. However, I cannot remain silent. I will be brief.

At Second Reading, I said that I could not believe that we were debating such a piece of legislation in a British Parliament. This afternoon, I cannot believe that we are having to argue for basic, decent, fundamental principles for those who are most vulnerable, and particularly for unaccompanied children who, as others have said, have left their country because they had no other choice. The reality of what they were facing drove them from their families, from their homes, and from a place where they felt that they would be safe and where they belonged.

I merely say this to the Government. The Government have two options: to work with those who have tabled these amendments to make a disgusting piece of legislation less so, or to explain to me and other noble Lords why these amendments are unacceptable and how this Bill will not diminish the rights of the most vulnerable children who present themselves on our shores.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to the debate, I have three questions for the Minister.

First, if I understand the Government’s position correctly, the use of punitive measures against unaccompanied children in this Bill is for a deterrent effect. That is what the Minister said at Second Reading, and it has been a consistent line. For the Government to come to that view, they must have information about the numbers of unaccompanied children that the Bill will affect—otherwise it would have been impossible for them to have determined that this policy will be a deterrent. What is the Home Office’s core estimate of how many unaccompanied children it will require facilities for under this Bill? I know that the Minister has that information in his pack. He must tell the Committee what it is.

My second question is on the Government’s assertion that this measure complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government say that they will act in the interests of the child. At the moment, the UN checklist is the mechanism used to determine the best interests of the child. Will the Minister commit to the Committee that the UN checklist for the determination of the best interests of the child will be used under the terms of this Bill? If the Government’s plan is for it not to be used, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others I fear that they will not be acting in the interest of the child according to the UN convention. This is particularly relevant given that the policy shift is moving away from determining what will be the safety of a child and towards what is considered to be a safe country. That is a very radical change. For example, there are a number of countries on the Government’s safe list that they are today advising against all travel to. Therefore, a British official, or any British charity, may seek to accompany an unaccompanied child back to a country that is considered to be safe while the Foreign Office advises against all travel to that area. How can that be consistent? Last year, I visited the Rwanda reception centre in Kigali. There were no children’s facilities. Can the Minister confirm that there are now?

My third question is this. The Government’s fact sheet on children states that:

“For any unaccompanied child who is removed when under 18, we will ensure that adequate reception arrangements are in place where the child is to be removed to”.


That is not true. What in this Bill provides for the assurance and the duty that there will be reception arrangements in place for any unaccompanied child? There is no mention of that in the Bill. The fact sheet cannot be correct if the Bill does not state that this will be the case. If the Minister can tell me where in the Bill there is a duty to ensure that there are reception facilities and reception arrangements in place for a child to be removed to, I would be very grateful.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

We are country with a proud reputation of accepting refugees. Unaccompanied children do not just leave their country of origin for anything other than exceptionally dire circumstances. We should be protecting them, and removing Clause 2(7) is a start in the right direction.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of the amendments in this group, including my Amendment 8; I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for adding his name to it. My amendment deals specifically with Clause 2(4) and would include persecution of a person on the basis of gender, sexuality and gender identity for the purposes of the third condition under which a person could be removed. However, I wish to now speak against Clause 2 and the duty to deport.

As we have heard from other noble Lords, the Bill seeks to give unprecedented powers to the Home Secretary to deport people without even a fair hearing of their case. The Home Secretary is in fact compelled to carry out that duty, even when it conflicts with human rights protections. The Bill seeks to limit the circumstances in which legal challenges could prevent a removal and allows the Home Secretary to add or remove countries to the list of so-called safe countries. This is even more worrying, looking at Schedule 1. At present, four of the countries on that list are not signatories to the UN convention, and some may not even have a functional asylum system. I will come back to this later on a further grouping but, if a person were deported or returned to most of the countries on the list in Schedule 1, they would face discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nigeria is one that springs to mind.

Without the requirement to make individualised assessments about whether it is safe to remove a person seeking asylum, and in providing very limited opportunities for individuals to present evidence of the risks that they could face, there is a real concern that many refugees will be deported to a country where their safety is at risk, or returned to their home country where their life could be threatened again, as I have said. The refugee convention makes it clear that return is prohibited to any country where a refugee could face persecution and not just their own.

I return now to the thinking behind my own amendment. In passing through a so-called safe third country, I refer to the internationally accepted definition of a refugee, which makes reference to five possible grounds for persecution: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion: UN General Assembly 1951, page 137. These grounds are also recognised as covering persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity and gender-based human rights abuses.

Such examples also illustrate that persecution may happen where the state is not itself the perpetrator. Although some definitions have in the past required this, it is not universal. I believe it is therefore right to expand within the Bill the acceptance of individuals becoming refugees both when persecution is perpetrated by the state and where there is a failure of the state to provide protection against persecution by others. On that basis, I commend my amendment to noble Lords.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will quickly speak on Amendment 12, otherwise I fear there will not be a second voice in support of the very important issue of the potential impact of the Bill in respect of Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has pointed out that the human rights memorandum does not include an assessment of compliance of the Bill with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, so my first question to the Minister is: will that memorandum be amended to include such an assessment?

The Bill raises significant concerns about compliance with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and with the Windsor Framework, because the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into Northern Ireland law was an explicit commitment of the Good Friday agreement and was achieved through the Human Rights Act. The Bill would constitute a breach of two core elements of this commitment: the guarantee of direct access to the courts and the obligation to provide remedies for breach of the convention, under the relevant chapter of the agreement. That chapter extends to everyone in the community, which includes asylum seekers and refugees.

I believe the Bill is also inconsistent with obligations under Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, which details various equality and non-discrimination EU directives with which Northern Ireland must keep pace. This includes the victims’ directive and the trafficking directive. The potential for the Bill to lead to failures in identifying and supporting trafficking victims, as well as the provisions on detention and removal, would place Northern Ireland in direct contravention of those directives. I believe that the Government’s explainer document on the Windsor Framework, Article 2, acknowledges that its protections apply to everyone who is subject to the law in Northern Ireland. Asylum seekers are part of the community and therefore protected by the Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity chapter of the Good Friday agreement. I understand that in ongoing court proceedings—I prefer “continuing” court proceedings—the Home Office has not disputed the argument that the protections of the relevant chapter of the Good Friday agreement extend to asylum seekers and refugees.

The Bill instructs the Secretary of State to declare inadmissible any claim that removal of an individual would breach their convention rights, if that individual met the extremely broad criteria covered by the duty to remove. It says that this inadmissibility cannot be appealed, so if those provisions were applied to someone arriving in Northern Ireland, it would be a direct breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement because it makes convention rights inaccessible and restricts that individual’s direct access to the courts and remedies for breach of the convention. Also, the application of the Bill to land border crossings could constitute a breach of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework and indeed of its very objectives.

To try to compress all that down, it is a matter of considerable concern that there is a failure to address compliance with Article 2 of the Windsor Framework, and more broadly with the Good Friday agreement, in the human rights memorandum to the Bill. I will end where I started, which is to ask the Minister whether such an assessment is going to materialise.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I think it is this side.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

It is this side; an independent has just spoken.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Speaking independently, I think it is this side, but I will give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way and therefore I will be brief. I am not a lawyer, but I come to these matters from a very personal perspective.

I stand here as someone who, for most of my life, has faced discrimination and illegality. Why? Because the views of a majority were used against people like me enjoying the equal protection of the law and freedom from discrimination. I believe it is incumbent on anyone in public life to challenge public opinion, to lead public opinion and to have the courage to do the right thing for the long term, and never follow the short term.

I am grateful for the many briefings I have received on this from the Refugee Council, the Red Cross, the Law Society and many other eminent organisations. I think it is the first time that I have read from such reputable organisations that a Bill should be rejected on grounds of legality and constitutionality.

I particularly welcome Amendment 4 in this group because it states, quite rightly, our legal obligations. It neuters the power of Clause 1 to mandate that the rest of the Bill be in conformity with what I believe is an attempt to deny the right to seek asylum and refuge in this country.

I am lucky that I was born in the United Kingdom. I have to stand back and say: what if I had not been? What if I had been born in a country where I could not be myself, love someone of the same sex or have a different political opinion or a different religion? What if I was that person? What would I do to value my family, my life or my liberty? I would seek refuge.

To leave your home is not an easy option. I say to the Government: do not represent it as a rush through Waitrose with a three-wheeled shopping trolley. It is about life and death. Yes, there are young men who have the courage to step into a leaky boat at the end of their journey and cross the English Channel. They cross the English Channel so that they can find a place where they might belong, where they might be able to use the language or learn the language or seek out others who have similar cultural and social values. What about them, coming to earn money to send back home to liberate their families from poverty and oppression? Are they not worthy of being given the right to a fair hearing and the equality of the law?

Finally, as I said, I was born in the United Kingdom, but I am told that my family left Spain as Jews in the 16th century and travelled across Europe for the centuries that followed in search of refuge—in search of asylum. Some ended up in Ireland, where they had enough of persecution because of their religion and converted to Roman Catholicism. That branch of my family came here, and I come from that branch of the family. When I was old enough to understand that my religion was being used against me to deny me my rights and to deprive me my place and my right to love, I became a born-again atheist.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, referred to the speeches she had heard. She might have heard me refer to a brilliant speech in a play by Shakespeare, which I am not going to give to your Lordships this afternoon.

[Noble Lords]

Oh, go on.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

It is a brilliant speech, which reminds us that what was done hundreds of years ago is still being done: othering. “You bid that the strangers be removed”. These strangers have made their way from Calais to Dover to London.

“Imagine you are the stranger, with your children upon your back, your family at your side, your belongings at your feet. Imagine you are the stranger and bid that they be removed and show your mountainish inhumanity”.—[Official Report, 10/5/23; col 1849.]


That is what these amendments address and if, at some later stage, Amendment 4 is pressed, I will have absolutely no hesitation in supporting it.

UK Asylum and Refugee Policy

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Friday 9th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it really is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, with whom I agree entirely. There have been a lot of references to religion and Christianity this morning—not surprisingly, I suppose, given that the debate is in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, I want to point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, and I come to these matters from the concept that what is happening to others could so easily be happening to me—and if I would not want it to happen to me, how dare I allow it to happen to others? I commend and celebrate the work I see being done by those of all faiths and none. I also congratulate the three maiden speakers: the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester; my dear friend from the West Midlands, my noble friend Lord Sahota; and, of course, my noble friend Lady Twycross.

At times of crisis, and when countries and their systems are under increasing pressure, we have even more need to adhere to international standards and agreed human rights obligations, as my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port so eloquently outlined. Indeed, in times of crisis, we need certainty, and we need to abide by principles and standards that I believe define us as a civilised nation. How we treat those most in need defines us long after our actions. Therefore, the demonisation, stereotyping, misrepresentation and defamation of asylum seekers and migrants by the media, politicians and government Ministers is deeply reprehensible, serves no one and does nothing other than fuel hatred, despair and greater isolation.

Only when we deal with the reasons why people flee their country will we ever reduce the need for refuge, and until we can achieve resolution of those issues, we must meet our international—indeed, our moral—obligations.

As we have heard, the UK asylum system is in an utter state of collapse. It is overwhelmed by backlogs which government policy has created. The impact is one of crisis: thousands of people stuck for long and indefinite periods, frequently in inadequate, unsanitary, overcrowded and even unlawful conditions, which cause disease, distress and—there is every indication to conclude—deaths. There are now significantly more people dying in the system, including babies.

The last three Home Secretaries, discounting Grant Shapps, whose term of office lasted less than a week, have made crossing the channel by small boat a focal point. During their respective terms, they have each contributed to the sense that these crossings constitute a national threat. Priti Patel significantly cranked up rhetoric and policy that is hostile to people seeking asylum. The current Home Secretary has continued this, describing people seeking asylum as invaders, and doing so barely 24 hours after a firebomb attack upon people seeking asylum detained in Dover—shameful in the extreme. The express aim of such policy is deterrence, primarily expressed as deterrence of small boat crossings, but the real policy aim is the deterrence of seeking asylum.

We witness a dangerous cocktail of deterrence and the demonisation of asylum seekers. No good has come from this policy and no good can come from it. We need safe, clear, obvious ways to seek asylum; no more confusion, ducking and diving; no more Home Secretaries using asylum seekers and desperate migrants as political capital to shore up their bid for power in the future; and no more dangerous rhetoric, aided and abetted by a right-wing printed media that fills me with shame. We urgently need the creation of real and accessible safe routes by which people—especially those with family and connections here—can seek asylum in the United Kingdom, and we need the Government to respect international human rights and asylum law in the case of every person who exercises their right to seek asylum in this country.

I quote from a briefing from the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium:

“Over recent years, we have seen the government significantly erode the rights of children seeking asylum, not just by making the asylum system less accessible and more punitive but by also excluding them from the child protection and welfare frameworks that should apply to all children in this country regardless of nationality, ethnicity or immigration status.”


If such an appalling indictment does not shame the Government and fill us all with a sense of shame, I wonder what kind of country we have become.

However, I finish on a positive note. A man who experienced the best of British decency when he arrived here under the Kindertransport, my noble friend Lord Dubs, reminded us that we must give hope.