Small Boats Incident in the Channel

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, and of course he caveats that by saying that the methods by which people are turned back have to be safe. That is essential.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a specific question. A large number of unaccompanied child refugees are sleeping rough in Calais and Dunkirk tonight. Does anything she has said give them any hope of moving away from there, other than that they should get on a boat if they can find a trafficker?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we do not want a child to get on a boat if they can find a trafficker. I assume that is why those children are there: someone, somewhere, hopes they will find a trafficker to bring them to the UK. We have mechanisms for bringing unaccompanied asylum-seeking children here. We are not bound by the European Union now; we are bound by our obligations to the whole world. I know that the House and the noble Lord still refer to the EU, but we are focusing on vulnerability from across the world.

Migrants

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the timing of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, was appropriate in getting the date for this debate, but apart from her wish to have better co-operation between Britain and France, I am afraid that I part company with pretty well all of her arguments. I do not see refugees coming here, fleeing for safety, as a terrorist threat to this country; nor do I see the evidence that she has put forward for all the other awful things that will befall, or have befallen, us.

We are a country that has traditionally had humanitarian principles. We are a country that has had a sense of decency. We are a country that has believed that the vulnerable of this world—those suffering from persecution—are entitled to safety. They cannot all come here. Only a small proportion come here, but those who do we should welcome and give them a chance to resume their lives. I am disappointed at the negative thrust of what we heard.

I will say briefly that what happened was a tragedy, and of course many people have said that it was only a matter of time before there was an awful accident in the channel—but perhaps it is a wake-up call. I argue that three things point the way forward. Yes, we have to improve our relations with France; not in some of the words that have been used but with a proper, warm, genuine and sincere relationship with the French, such that we can co-operate with them. Yes, they have committed faults, but we have committed faults, and we cannot get an agreement with them if we start blaming them, as if everything is their fault. Let us remember that the French take three or four times as many refugees as we do, so, for all the argument, they are playing a better part than we are. Let us also remember that the majority of the people who arrive by boat, or their predecessors who came in the back of lorries, are given refugee status by the Home Office, so someone must believe that they have a proper fear of persecution and are entitled to safety.

Secondly, we need safe and legal routes for people to come here. When the Government closed their borders on child refugees in northern France, they did an enormous service to the traffickers, because the one way in which they get business is if there are no safe and legal routes for people to come here. I am talking about people who want family reunion and who have a connection with this country, through language or education and, above all, family ties. What could be more important than a child or teenager—yes, perhaps a young man—wanting to be with a brother, an uncle or their parents? Surely that is the basis for a decent society. The Government closed that door and, in the Nationality and Borders Bill, seem to be even more intent on closing it in the future. That will not help at all.

Thirdly, we surely need to move towards a Europe-wide policy. We cannot do all of this as one country without agreement with others. People fleeing for safety is an international issue—and there will be more of them, because of climate change. We can deal with that only through proper co-operation, not just with France but with all the other countries that are affected. If we had a Europe-wide approach, there would not be this pressure to move from one country to another; there would be decent common standards, and we could move forward sensibly.

The comment in the noble Baroness’s speech that I particularly take exception to is that these people represent a terrorist threat to this country. Nothing could be more damaging than to say to local communities of somebody who has fled the war in Syria or fled from Iran, Iraq or wherever, “Watch that person because they are liable to kill you”. That is surely the most awful accusation to make against our fellow human beings who are fleeing for safety and who want nothing more than to resume their education and their lives, which have been so messed up. Please let us look at the humanitarian traditions of this country and apply them to the difficult situation that we now face.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

293: Before Clause 55, insert the following new Clause—
“The right to protest
(1) The Public Order Act 1986 Part II (Processions and Assemblies) is amended as follows.(2) Before section 11 insert—The right to protest(1) Everyone has the right to engage in peaceful protest, both alone and with others.(2) Public authorities have a duty to—(a) respect the right to protest;(b) protect the right to protest; and(c) facilitate the right to protest.(3) A public authority may only interfere with the right to protest, including by placing restrictions upon its exercise, when it is necessary and proportionate to do so to—(a) protect national security or public safety,(b) prevent disorder or crime, or(c) protect public health, or the rights and freedoms of others.(4) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (acts of public authorities).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would introduce an express statutory right to protest, imposing both negative and positive obligations on public authorities while recognising that the right to protest may need to be limited to protect other legitimate public interests.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am privileged to be a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and these amendments—there are at least seven in my name—are based on its reports, so the Government have been fully warned of what we are going to say, because they have had those reports before them. This group of amendments is probably the substance of a whole Bill in themselves and it is very difficult to keep one’s remarks short. I should just say that I picked up a message about us on my phone, saying “Everyone looks knackered”. I just pass on that comment from the wider public.

Before I get to the substance of the amendment, I should make it clear that I have been on a large number of demos and protests over the years, even against Labour Governments. The most recent ones have been on child refugees in Parliament Square, and outside the Foreign Office in support of Richard Ratcliffe, who was on a hunger strike to try to get his wife out of imprisonment in Iran. I should add that, when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, there were demos against me for what I was doing or failing to do. So I have had some experience of demos on all sides. I do not know whether that gives me much authority to speak, but at least I have had the experience. When I talk about not making noise on demos, I speak from the experience of having made a lot of noise on demos, because it is the thing that keeps one going and that attracts attention.

Let me get to the substance of this. I repeat that I am speaking to at least seven amendments, but I will try to be as brief as possible. The first is to do with the trigger for imposing conditions on processions and assemblies in England and Wales. A lot of what I want to say is about the trigger and the adverse effect that it will have. Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR guarantee the right to peaceful protest, and any interference with non-violent protest is therefore an interference with those convention rights. That is absolutely clear and it is why the Joint Committee has taken such a firm stand.

Any restriction on the right to protest that targets noise is a particular concern, as it strikes at the heart of why people gather to protest. Larger and well-supported demos are much more likely to be louder. Therefore, restrictions on noise could disproportionately impact demonstrations that have the greatest public backing, which would be a perverse outcome.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights heard from witnesses who suggested that restrictions on protests based on the noise they produce pose

“an existential threat to the right to protest.”

One witness told us that protests

“lack value and are pointless if they cannot be heard and seen”.

I speak from experience. Perhaps not the demo outside the Foreign Office recently in support of Richard Ratcliffe’s hunger strike, but every other demo that I have been on has been about noise and having our voice heard, whether it is has been on marches or in Parliament Square when we have talked about child refugees. This is absolutely fundamental.

The second aspect is that the new noise trigger proposed in the Bill would allow for restrictions on peaceful protest to prevent the intimidation or harassment of “persons in the vicinity” suffering

“serious unease, alarm or distress”.

That is significant. Preventing intimidation and harassment, which are already criminal offences, would fall within the legitimate aim of preventing crime and disorder. However, the inference with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR, which refer to people being involved in making noise that causes alarm or distress—particularly noise that causes “serious unease”—can reasonably be justified only on the basis of

“the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The proposed new noise trigger also puts considerable responsibility on the police officers responsible for the decision whether to impose conditions. The conditions on public processions and assemblies represent a restriction on the right to protest that is not necessary in a democratic society. The amendment would remove the proposed new trigger.

I also refer to the effect of the trigger on a protest by a single person, as is specifically itemised in the Bill. Clause 61 extends the proposed new trigger based on noise generated by protest to cover protest by a single person, in addition to assemblies of two or more or processions. What can a single person do to disrupt good order? A single person would still be exercising their right to free expression under Article 10 of the ECHR. For the reasons given above in respect of Clauses 55 and 56, the Joint Committee on Human Rights opposes the introduction of the new trigger as an unjustified interference with this right. We also noted in our report that

“a single protester has less ability to produce seriously disruptive noise than a large assembly or procession.”

That is pretty evident, is it not? It should be added that existing criminal offences dealing with whether the noise crosses the line and becomes harassment or a threat to public order are available and easy to use against a single protester.

I turn to the question of awareness about the conditions that may be imposed and how they will impact on demonstrators. The Bill seeks to prevent demonstrators who breach conditions imposed on processions and assemblies avoiding prosecution on the basis that they did not know that such conditions were in place. However, it goes too far, sweeping up those who breach conditions of which they were genuinely and innocently unaware.

Amendments 309 and 312 would prevent this, ensuring that only those who know that conditions have been imposed on a demonstration or avoid gaining knowledge of the conditions deliberately and recklessly can be prosecuted for breaching them. A breach of conditions imposed by the police may justify a prosecution, but the potential penalty for a non-violent offence of this kind must not be disproportionate. An overly severe penalty may have a chilling effect on those considering exercising their right to protest. For this reason, Amendments 311 and 312 would remove the increased sentences proposed in the Bill, which seems a moderate suggestion indeed.

I will move on to the proposal to penalise people who “intentionally or recklessly” cause “public nuisance”. The Bill introduces a new statutory offence of

“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,

which was previously an offence under common law. The committee reported:

“We are seriously concerned that, as currently drafted, the public nuisance offence may be used to criminalise non-violent protest that would be protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. The offence would catch not only individuals who cause ‘serious annoyance’ or ‘serious inconvenience’ to the public but also those who create a risk of causing serious annoyance or serious inconvenience.”


It went on:

“It is not entirely clear what behaviour the Government and police are trying to tackle with the new offence”


that would not already be tackled by existing legislation. That runs through a lot of the difficulties we have had: the existing legislation is there, but the Government simply want to take it further.

The report says the new offence runs the risk of being

“used as a catch-all offence because of the wide range of conduct it covers.”

The JCHR has

“serious concerns about the new offence being included in Part 3 of the PCSC Bill, especially given the broad drafting which would catch non-violent protest. Protests are by their nature liable to cause serious annoyance and inconvenience and criminalising such behaviour may dissuade individuals from participating in peaceful protest.”

A protest must make an impact; it must be heard and seen, otherwise what is the point of a protest? Yet the Government seek to penalise what is a legitimate democratic activity. Under the current law, as I have said, there are a plethora of offences already available to the police.

The report says:

“The essence of the public nuisance offence is causing harm to the public or a section of the public. However, as drafted, the offence is confusing and could be read as meaning the offence is committed where serious harm is caused to one person rather than the public or a section of the public. This does not achieve clarity for either the police or protesters. The current drafting also risks the offence being broader than the common law offence it replaces.”


I am going to move on quickly. There needs to be a balance of rights between protesters and the public. I think that is accepted in the European Convention on Human Rights but is not something that runs through the drafting of the Bill. The report says:

“Current rhetoric around protest … focuses on discussions about ‘balancing’ the rights of protesters against the rights of members of the public … Whilst protests may cause inconvenience”—


and I fully accept that they may—

“they are also fundamental in a democratic society to facilitate debate and discussions on contentious issues and this is of value to the public generally … Whilst the ECHR provides that protests can be limited in order to protect the rights of others, any restriction of the right is only lawful if it is both proportionate and necessary.”

It is my contention that, throughout the Bill, the measures are not proportionate and many of them are not necessary.

Public authorities, including the police, are under a negative obligation not to interfere with the right to protest lawfully and a positive obligation to facilitate peaceful protest. This amendment would introduce a specific statutory protection for the right to protest and sets out the negative and positive obligations of the state in relation to protest. I beg to move the amendment—and I hope we are not all looking knackered.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer, and I have not been briefed to speak; I am only following my instinct. I have not intervened earlier in these proceedings because it is difficult remotely to pick up on the cut and thrust of a debate on issues that command strongly held views. This debate will inevitably draw on strong feelings this evening.

I will concentrate my remarks on one amendment, Amendment 293, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has spent a lifetime promoting issues of freedom and liberty. The amendment as currently worded, along with associated amendments, is an attempt to weaken provisions in parts of the Public Order Act 1986. My noble friend is well aware of my reservations, in that while Amendment 293 would further restrict a public authority’s power to limit the right to protest, it would still leave the door open for the prevention in advance of disorder, as referred to in subsection (3)(b) in the proposed new clause in the amendment. As I understand it, both would remain in breach, chargeable under highways and public order legislation.

It is at that point that I part company on the amendments. For me, liberty and freedom in this context must stand at the heart of the law. I am talking of the freedom to demonstrate, to object and to peacefully oppose—indeed, simply to say, “No, not in my name”. Under the provisions proposed for the Bill, they are all to be further subject to the approval of a statutory authority in the form of a mere mortal police officer acting on behalf of the state. As I understand it, it is a police officer who would be deciding on whether a liberty, in the form of a demonstration, could be deemed to be excessively disruptive potentially—yes, potentially. I can never accept that.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, these provisions in the Bill provide for no more than a modest updating of the Public Order Act. The police must have the tools they need to ensure that the rights of protesters are appropriately balanced with the rights of others. I hope that, in the light of my explanations, I have been able to satisfy noble Lords and I commend these clauses to the Committee.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the detail with which she went through the amendments, which was helpful. It is far too late in the evening to have a point-by-point discussion about them; we will leave that for Report. I shall make just two or three brief comments.

First, I am not satisfied from what the Minister said that the existing police powers are not adequate for most of the situations described. It seems to me that the police are able to take action, and there may be only a limited number of additional respects in which they need more powers. I should like to examine that in more detail.

Secondly, there was widespread concern about the noise issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for what he said. Although I was on the human rights committee—and still am—I cannot remember whether the question of electronic amplification ever came up. I am very sympathetic to the criticism of noise that is amplified in that way. I may have missed a point or misremembered, but I certainly think that that is not acceptable. However, it would be of concern if noise without amplification was going to be subject to the more stringent measures proposed.

I repeat my gratitude to all Members of the Committee who have contributed to a very interesting if somewhat lengthy debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 293 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I finish on the lack of clarity on what the clause is trying to achieve and in what situations it will apply. We all want to know about the seeming contradiction between what the Law Commission has said and the way in which the Government have used it to justify the change in Clause 60 and what the Bar Council says about it. I appreciate the balance that the Government are trying to strike, but we need to hear a little more from them about the new restrictions in Clauses 58 and 59, the various amendments to do with Clause 60 and how the right to protest, particularly at the seat of government, will be protected in a way that will preserve the democratic freedoms of this country, which we have all respected in the past and should be a source of pride for us.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Coaker has just said, but perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendments 315 and 316. They are there to improve the drafting of the offence to make it clear, first, that it is committed only when serious harm is done to the public, rather than to any one person, which is what the Bill’s wording is now, and, secondly, that when considering the reasonable excuse that the defence supplies, the court should take into account the importance of the rights guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. In other words, put simply, it is not about any one person but the public, and the courts should look at Articles 10 and 11 when coming to any decision about whether an offence has been committed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, for me, this is getting like election night. Any politician in the room will tell you that it is when you are really tired but you are so wired that you cannot possibly sleep anyway.

I have signed three of these amendments but I wanted to speak mainly to Amendment 315A. I am concerned about this whole part of the Bill, because it is far too broad and risks criminalising a host of innocent behaviour. We heard earlier about the right to move around. Today, I was stopped by the police outside and could not go for nearly 250 yards on the pavement because a band was going through. I love an Army brass band—it is absolutely fine—so I joined the crowds on the other side of the road who were all pushing and shoving. We often take away the right to move around, sometimes for good causes. I would argue that protest is a good cause.

As regards stopping traffic, let us remember that traffic jams cost us billions of pounds every year and millions of people are inconvenienced, with long times added to their journeys to work—working people who are delayed by traffic jams. This morning outside the Marlin Hotel on Westminster Bridge Road, three Mercedes were parked in the bus lane. The buses had to go around them, slowing all the traffic. What are the Government doing about that sort of thing? I contacted the police and sent them the registration numbers, so let us hope that they were caught.

The definitions in the Bill of serious harm are a mess because serious annoyance cannot be a crime—it is too difficult to define. You cannot put people in jail for just being annoying. I am sure that sometimes we would all like to, but you cannot do it. I am particularly worried, after the way in which Covid was policed early on, about the inclusion of disease in the new public nuisance offence. At the start of Covid—and possibly all the way through—every prosecution was wrongful. That was partly because—and I will be generous to the Government for once—the Government were confused and blurred the lines between law, guidance, advice and so on. As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, it was hard for the police because they did not know what they should be doing and became a bit overzealous. That may have been well intentioned but it was not appropriate. There were wrongful prosecutions and convictions as a result. Let us be a bit more careful about the definitions in the Bill, because I think that they will cause more problems.

We are all boasting about our qualifications for going on demonstrations and that sort of thing. My first demo was in 1968 for CND, of which I am still a member, and we are still fighting nuclear weapons—but that is another issue. I argue that the Government are taking chaos and ambiguity to new heights and I urge them not to allow the dangerous and confusing language in the Bill to go through because it is certain to lead to injustice.

Refugees: Status

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and in particular regarding the principle that asylum seekers must apply for refugee status in the first safe country they have reached.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is part of our new plan for immigration, seeks to build a fair but firm asylum and legal migration system. Those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. The plan complies with our international obligations and we continue to engage with our partners, including the UNHCR, with whom we have a positive and constructive relationship, as we take the plan forward.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Is the Minister not saying, in effect, that the Government know better than the UNHCR, the UNHCR being the guardian of the 1951 convention? By what right and by what argument are the Government saying that the UNHCR is wrong on this?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the chance to contribute to this debate. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. I did not actually notice him in Putney. I spent a lot of time canvassing in Putney; perhaps we were in different parts of the constituency. Anyway, it was a good result for us, so I can boast about that.

Perhaps I should also say—I do not know whether I am going to boast or confess—that I am trying to think of how many demos and events like that I have been on. It is quite a large number. I think the first one I went to was a demonstration against apartheid around South Africa House and the most recent was in Parliament Square on behalf of refugees. I may have been on the wrong side of this new legislation, if it goes through unamended, on a number of occasions, just simply by demonstrating for causes which I believed in, and often with a lot of noise. We often shouted on demos, because that is what one does on a demo—that is the way demos work. However, enough of that.

I am privileged to be on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have had a look at this Bill. I would like to talk about some aspects of the Bill based on the work of the committee, particularly public order and the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, and to say a brief word about the children of mothers in prison.

We must surely protect the right to peaceful protest. We must accept that crime is best tackled when there is co-operation between the police and local communities, and we must never put the police in an impossible position by asking them to enforce a law which works against the right to peaceful protest. Surely that puts the police against local communities, which is the last thing we want to happen. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental. We have seen what happens in countries where peaceful protest rights are denied, most recently in Hong Kong, Belarus and Afghanistan. I do not want those countries to look at us and say that we are taking a leaf out of their behaviour. So we must be concerned about a power that would allow the police to move the location of a demonstration, limit its numbers or duration, or even try to limit the noise. The police already have powers to ensure that demos are lawful and safe. They do not need these extra powers relating to “intensity” or “serious unease”.

These powers could make it difficult for organisers of demos; they will not know how many people are going to join them. If one is on a demo, one does not know how many thousands of people will be there and how they will behave. The organisers of the demo surely cannot be responsible for that. So these conditions will represent a restriction on the right to protest that is not necessary or justified in a democratic society. On protests around Parliament, while it is right that parliamentarians must have free access to Parliament, we do not want Parliament Square to become what I think somebody called a “dissent-free zone”. The noise factor seems to have been drafted by people who have never seen a demo—or been on one.

As for one-person protests, I just cannot believe this can be part of the Bill. One-person protests, somebody standing there—good gracious me. There used to be a man who demonstrated against tobacco. I saw him everywhere: one chap waving a little placard.

What worries me about the Bill is that so many of the powers are given to the Government by regulation. Surely these should be defined in the Bill itself. It is not right that Ministers can be given such enormous powers and we do not even know what they are. If they cannot be on the face of the Bill, at the very least the regulations should be published so that Parliament and the JCHR can consider them before scrutiny of the Bill has been completed.

Then of course there is a lack of information about conditions attached to demos which makes it harder to judge the effectiveness of existing laws. We should also make sure that conditions imposed at protests are recorded and collected so we can see what has been applied.

I turn briefly to the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Václav Havel, one of my heroes, said that the litmus test of a civil society is the way it treats its Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. That is absolutely crucial. I do not think the Government should use the criminal law to address what is essentially a planning issue; instead, there should be a statutory duty on local authorities to make adequate site provision for Traveller communities. The idea of seizing a Traveller’s vehicle—which is essentially their home—is just appalling.

My noble friend Lord Rooker referred to another important issue: what happens to families where the mother is put in prison and the children are left? As the human rights committee said, the Government still do not know how many mothers of dependent children are in prison. There should surely be a requirement that what will happen in a family if the mother is put in prison is taken into account.

I will leave everything else—except to say to the Minister that she is going to have a jolly tough time in Committee and on Report.

EU Borders: Refugees from Afghanistan

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord talked about a mid-August debate—I do not recall, but I may have misheard him. On asylum seekers, I certainly agree with him on several fronts, including that asylum applications should be expedited as quickly as possible. However, I do not agree that we should grant asylum to people en bloc because we need to be very sure that the people we welcome here are not a threat to this country.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, in discussions with the European Union, are the Government seeking to distinguish between those Afghans who left after the Taliban takeover and those who fled the Taliban before the takeover and reached Europe some time ago? Surely they should all be treated equally.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Again, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, every asylum application should be treated on its merit. If a person left Afghanistan some time ago, before the Taliban takeover, and their application is in the system, that application will be treated on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, others came through Operation Pitting and the ARAP scheme. I repeat: anyone who finds themselves in Europe should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can confirm to my noble friend that not all applications concluded are accepted. There will be some specific cohorts of people who will not have their applications accepted; for example, for various reasons to do with offending or for reasons of national concern. However, as regards the physical document, the EU settlement scheme was designed precisely to avoid a Windrush-type event, where immigration status was automatically conferred on people by an Act of Parliament but with no record made of it. Successful applicants under the EU settlement scheme receive a digital immigration status that provides that secure evidence of their status.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the original estimates made by the Home Office represent about half the number of people eligible under the scheme? Will she further confirm that when the figures were last produced, at least 300 children had not been identified? Given that, it is likely that there will be many more than 300. Therefore, while I welcome the Minister’s commitment that the scheme for children will be open indefinitely, is there not a concern that there will be a large number of children whom the Home Office have not identified and who may still not be aware of their position in the years to come?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I totally acknowledge the noble Lord’s point about children who in years to come might not have that status and therefore will need to apply for it. That is why the scheme, which accepts reasonable excuses for why somebody has not applied, will remain open indefinitely. I hope the noble Lord will be happy that 67% of children in care have applied. That is a great figure but support will be ongoing to encourage those children to apply. The noble Lord’s point about the Home Office underestimating the number of people who might apply for settled status is absolutely right. So did the3million, hence its name. We now have 5.6 million applications, which is a very encouraging figure.

Immigration Rules: Statements of Changes

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the wording of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green, although not with many of the views that he expressed. He is surely right that such major changes to our Immigration Rules, whether for immigrants or asylum seekers, require proper and constructive debate that is not carried out in an hour and a half in the late afternoon, without our ability to come to terms with the real issues involved.

From my experience of both Houses, the Immigration Rules have always been difficult for Parliament to deal with, but we have never had such a problem as the noble Lord described. They have been difficult because they are normally unamendable, which means that we cannot properly engage with the issues. We cannot easily identify the changes or make our voice heard if we disagree. My plea, which I have expressed before to the Minister, is that if there are to be changes to the Immigration Rules—I assumed that they would be more modest than the ones we face today—they should be published in draft and debated by the House before they are presented in their final form. That gives us a slight chance, at any rate, of influencing the outcome. These proposals should never be put forward in a way that such major changes have to be taken, as it were, in one gulp.

We await the sovereign borders Bill, but it is not totally clear which of the Government’s proposals will be only in the rules, in the Bill or in both. That is another cause of confusion. Are we to await the sovereign boarders Bill in the hope that we can make more impact? That would be when the noble Lord, Lord Green, would be able to have his say on the arguments he has put forward.

There can be no doubt that people smugglers are vile, and that catching them and preventing them from doing what they do—risking people’s lives—is very important. But I have to take a different view from the Government. I do not think that the proposals put forward to us will deter traffickers; indeed, they may well encourage them. This is now a well-worn argument, but if we close legal routes to safety for people seeking asylum, the only recourse they have is to go to the traffickers. The traffickers will be rubbing their hands with glee at the Government’s proposals.

I urge the Government to be more sympathetic to family reunion, especially in the case of children who want to join family members here. We know that there are children in northern France, in what has replaced the “jungle” near Calais, and on the Greek islands. Some of these young people have family links with the UK. What is to become of them now that the Dublin III provisions have stopped? Will there be any way in which they can apply to come legally? After all, they reached the Greek islands and northern France before they knew of the Government’s proposals—although I doubt that that would have had any effect.

The Government are saying clearly—and regrettably —that an asylum seeker will be inadmissible if they have travelled through or have a connection with a safe third country. But—I repeat—what about those who have a connection to this country? Have the Government reached any agreements yet with other countries to take people who will be refused on the basis of their proposals? Can we have a list of the countries that have said that, yes, they will take them on the basis of our policy? I doubt that the Government will find any. In any case, if we say that they have not travelled the way we would like them to, what about those who have a connection with this country? Would not the French or other people say, “Well, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander”—or whatever the expression is—“and surely, if they are following that policy, why shouldn’t we?” I just think it is unworkable. In any case, it does not take much thought to realise that, if all European countries had followed that policy, the million or so Syrians who went to Germany would still be in Greece, Italy or Malta. We cannot allow the accident of geography to put such enormous responsibilities on some countries without the costs being shared.

Furthermore, I would argue that it is against the 1951 convention to penalise refugees for unauthorised entry to a territory. It is expressly forbidden. The Government say that they legally have right on their side. Well, I have talked to the UNHCR—which, as far as I am concerned, is the custodian of the 1951 Geneva convention—and it seems to me that we will be in for some legal battles to resolve that. Frankly, I think that the Government are wrong on this.

Some of the briefing we have had explains that the Immigration Rules concede that leave outside the rules is “theoretically possible”. The question is how to make this possible. In the words of the Home Office, such leave should be granted where refusal

“would result in unjustifiably harsh consequences”.

How can this be challenged? It is an argument of a Home Office official or Minister against the applicant. That is not a workable way forward.

I fear that another consequence of the Government’s proposals will be an increase in the backlog of applicants. The Home Office is already grappling with an enormous backlog. Frankly, I think this will make the situation worse.

To end on a positive note, where I can agree with the Minister, I think community sponsorship is a good idea, but it has to be worked out and the Government have to publicise the scheme and help to make it less bureaucratic.

Net Migration

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the new points-based system that we intend to roll out is open to the entire world. Interestingly, the MAC advice was that the cap be abolished and that it would make sense to reduce migration numbers by varying other aspects of the scheme criteria—for example, the salary threshold and the level of the immigration service charge.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, is not one consequence of the Government’s stated policy that we are doing enormous damage to our economy, particularly in areas where there are labour shortages, such as agriculture, horticulture and social care? In the attempt to keep the numbers down, is there not a danger that we will be breaching the human rights of asylum seekers simply because their mode of travel is not acceptable to the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, one of the things we discussed in previous debates was employers in this country not seeking to use cheap migrant labour but to rely on our domestic labour supply. We want a fair system for asylum seekers with safe, legal routes.

Immigration

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will answer two of those questions. Eighteen is the cut-off age because 18 is the age of an adult, and we do not want adults sharing classrooms with young children, for example. It is important to assess people’s ages, and we will try to do so on a more scientific basis. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that applications fell in 2020. We had a pandemic and everything fell in 2020—so did returns. I am sure that the applications will be back up this year.

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

In the recent past, the Government have closed down two safe and legal routes for unaccompanied child refugees to reach this country from the continent—the Dubs amendment and the provisions under the Dublin treaty. How can the Minister reconcile closing down those routes with the claim that the Government want only safe and legal routes for people to come to this country? She has made that virtually impossible. Are not the Government getting very close to saying that family reunion will depend on the method by which somebody arrived in the UK, not the merits of their case? Surely we are turning the clock back in a most retrograde manner.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I disagree that we have closed down routes. The Dubs scheme specified a number, which was subsequently increased to 480. It was based on the ability of local authorities to take children—the noble Lord shakes his head, but he knows that. We did not close it down; we successfully completed it. As for Dublin, we left the European Union, so we were never going to continue it. As I said during the passage of the immigration Bill, all the routes would continue to be open and we are now in consultation on what our new sovereign borders and immigration system will look like.