Humanist Marriages

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thornton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they conducted an equality impact assessment following the judgment in R (Harrison & Ors) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] concerning humanist marriages.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

On behalf of my noble friend, and with her agreement, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, under the previous Government, the High Court found in Harrison a difference of treatment in weddings law towards humanists. However, it also found that the then Government had demonstrated that the difference in treatment was justified given the legitimate aim to address differences in treatment as part of wholesale reform. As a new Government, we need properly to consider these important issues and will set out our position in due course.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, when the High Court ruled that the lack of legal recognition for humanist marriages was discriminatory, this was surely an argument for the last Government to do something, which they failed to do. Is it not now time for this Government to go through the process of having an impact assessment?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we will assess marriage in the round, including humanist weddings, and we will announce when we do that in due course. I agree with the general point which my noble friend has made.

King’s Speech

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her reappointment as Victims’ Commissioner. I am sure there will be enormous support for that reappointment and we wish her well in a very challenging post.

In looking at the gracious Speech and having listened to it, I noticed a reference to strengthening the social fabric of the UK, a reference to keeping communities safe from crime and anti-social behaviour and several references to migration—or “illegal migration”, as the Government seek to call it. I shall say a little bit about the Illegal Migration Act, a bit about the social fabric of the UK, including the threats of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, a bit about the use of language and a bit about the European Convention on Human Rights.

I regard the Illegal Migration Act as unfinished business and I think the Government do as well. The Government are, after all, consulting local authorities on the Act and promised to look at the possibility of safe and legal routes after the Act became law. The Government are faced with the difficulty that it appears that the cost of the “Bibby Stockholm”—the barge to house asylum seekers—will be 10% higher than hotel rooms. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that. I would also like to know what the Government will do in light of the court decision on Rwanda. If the Government lose that case, will they continue with some sort of policy of outsourcing to different countries? What will they do?

The Government claim that the number of boats coming across the channel—a reprehensible activity; people traffickers are awful—is down. However, my understanding is that there was pretty bad weather this year in July and August, which may have contributed to the number reducing. I do not think that we should sit back and say that the problem is solved. There is also the high cost of family reunion, which is a necessary part of our policy.

I will say a word about the right to work. In some countries—I was talking to a lawyer from Australia the other day—an asylum seeker has the right to work fairly soon after they arrive. The Government’s argument will be that, if we gave asylum seekers the right to work, it would encourage more to cross by boat. Frankly, I do not think that is right. What it would do is give people a certain amount of self-respect. It would enable them to pay their way with rent, accommodation and food. It would be the right change to make.

The biggest encouragement to asylum seekers is the enormous backlog of asylum claims—I believe there are about 170,000. I know the Government are trying to get the numbers down. It is scandalous that we have so many people hanging about, but not having a future. No wonder people say that the whole system has broken down. Some lone children have had to wait five years or more for a decision. That is not the right way forward. We should give people the right to work fairly soon after they have got here—not immediately, but fairly soon.

One of the Government’s aims is to

“strengthen the social fabric of the United Kingdom”.

Clearly, we must tackle anti-Semitism and we must do more to tackle Islamophobia—both have loomed large in recent weeks since the tragic events in the Middle East. I would like to see more initiatives to tackle Islamophobia. It is a disgrace that children are frightened to go to school and that there are fears in our local communities about what is happening. We must also ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten, so I welcome the Government’s continuing support for the Holocaust Educational Trust.

We have heard some extraordinary statements by the Home Secretary recently. I shall itemise them. My blunt question is: will the Minister confirm that the Home Secretary does not speak for the Government? She does not speak for the Government when she condemns the planned marches or demo this weekend as “hate marches”. She does not speak for the Government when she says that rough sleeping is a “lifestyle choice”. She does not speak for the Government when she talks about a “hurricane” or an “invasion” of migrants. She does not speak for the Government when she said that multiculturalism is a “misguided dogma” leading to “parallel lives”. Will the Minister confirm that these are aberrations on the part of the Home Secretary and do not reflect the policy of the Government?

I mention, finally, the references by the Home Secretary and other Ministers to the European Convention on Human Rights. When I served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I went with it twice to Strasbourg. In Strasbourg, they think that we were founding members of the European Convention on Human Rights. They say that our courts have a better relationship with the Strasbourg court than probably any other country that adheres to the convention. They think it would be so damaging, not only to this country, but to the cause of human rights, if we were to leave the European convention or somehow distance ourselves from it. In Strasbourg they said to me that, if Britain does not adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights, the notorious abusers of human rights all over the world will say “If the Brits don’t do it, why should we?”.

European Court of Human Rights

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, when I visited the Strasbourg court some while ago, it was full of enthusiasm about the good co-operation between our courts and the European Court of Human Rights. I was told there that any weakening of this country’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights would encourage the notorious abusers of human rights to say, “If the Brits don’t go along with it, why should we?” That is why it is so damaging when Cabinet Ministers make the comments that they have done.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that dialogue is important. We have a very productive dialogue with the European Court of Human Rights. It has touched recently on the important question of Rule 39, and it has been a very constructive dialogue which I hope will continue.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have been trying to make sense of all this, as someone who never met Her late Majesty. My mother was seven years older than Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II, but when I lost my own personal life anchor, when my mother died, I felt that I still had Her Majesty the Queen.

Her late Majesty was the safest of a safe pair of hands. She was the most reliable of the people upon whom we relied; she was the greatest example of duty and dedication. I was concerned in recent years that the Queen could not possibly continue to the very end without having to abdicate as old age took its toll, yet she served to the very end—something that I feel sure she would have been very happy to achieve. Our Lord Jesus Christ is sometimes described as the servant king. Her late Majesty was surely the servant Queen. May she rest in peace.

The work of this House has been disrupted, normal life is interrupted, and all this feels very destabilising—but we have a new monarch and a new life anchor. If Liz Truss was anxious about having a difficult act to follow, spare a thought for His Royal Highness King Charles III. Our thoughts are with His Majesty and other members of the Royal Family at this time of loss and grief. In his address to the nation yesterday, His Majesty the King showed every sign that he can and will be our new source of stability during these turbulent times. Long may he reign.

What would my mother have said? Being of the same generation, I can hear Her late Majesty saying the same: “All very unfortunate, but you’ll just have to get on with it”. And we will, with God’s help, and the leadership of our King.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate and I shall try to be brief: I have deleted things I was going to say that are already covered in the Hansard of either House, noble Lords will be relieved to know.

I shall start with Northern Ireland. There was, at the time I served there, a tradition that when a member of the Royal Family visited Northern Ireland, they should be accompanied by a Minister. Fast forward to 1997, when I was appointed s one of the Northern Ireland Office Ministers. We were having a ministerial meeting and we discovered that the first Northern Ireland Questions in the Commons after the election clashed with a Hillsborough garden party. There was some consternation until my boss, Mo Mowlam, pointed to me and said, “You’ll have to deal with it.” I was briefed for at least two hours the evening before on how I should deal with the garden party—in particular, how I should look after and escort the Queen. It was an interesting occasion.

At lunch, I sat on the Queen’s right and she was brilliant in her analysis of Northern Ireland politics and Northern Ireland politicians: I wish I had kept a record—though I am also glad I did not. It was like a seminar from her; she was on top of the issues, she had good judgments, which I cannot, of course, quote, and it was a total insight. I was utterly captivated. After lunch, I took her around the gardens, introducing her to people I did not know, which is an art form in itself. I had a filing cabinet in each pocket and I managed, but sometimes the people to whom I was introducing the Queen were in the wrong order. However, she handled it with absolute professionalism, so that when I was a bit flustered, she was not flustered. It was an absolutely remarkable occasion.

The week before that, the Queen wanted to meet the new junior Ministers in the 1997 Government, so we all went to Buckingham Palace. We were chatting to the Queen and at one point the conversation turned to the procedures for the Queen’s Speech. The Queen asked, referring to Members of the Commons, how they actually listen to the Queen’s Speech, to which the reply was that some come to the Bar of the House and others watch on television. Then I said something that perhaps I should not have said, but my tact disappeared. I said to the Queen, “Your Majesty, have you ever delivered a Queen’s Speech you didn’t agree with?” There was a deathly silence—my ministerial colleagues thought I was going to be out—and the Queen looked at me and said, “Yes, it has happened”, but I did not ask her to give me examples of the occasions on which it had happened.

More recently, Prince Charles, as he then was, and his wife came to the Irish centre in Hammersmith. It was a very jolly occasion, several months ago. There was music, dancing and so on, and the royal couple entered totally into the spirit of it. Then, of course, yesterday evening, we heard his brilliant speech—his brilliant and emotional tribute to his mother—and I thought that a man who can go from the previous occasion to that really can encompass the whole range of responsibilities that now befall him.

I turn very briefly to the visit to Ireland by the Queen in 2011, I think. I was not there, but it was an absolutely brilliant occasion and it made a difference for the better in the relationship between this country and Ireland. She did not put a foot wrong: she wore a green dress, spoke Gaelic and paid tribute to the Irish dead from 1916 and 1921. It was absolutely handled brilliantly.

I have just one other little anecdote. Some years ago, the Queen went to Bratislava where there was a commemoration of two events: the end of the Iron Curtain—after all, Bratislava was and is on the border with Austria—and the Kindertransport. The British embassy invited some of us who came to Britain on Kindertransport to go there. Schoolchildren were doing a project on the occasion and the Queen was there. We were lined up—bear in mind that I had already met the Queen several times in Northern Ireland—and she came down the line of Kindertransport people, came to me and said, “I didn’t know this about you.” It was quite disarming and very sweet. I was really impressed again, by her and the way she handled things.

Finally, I am a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. We have a WhatsApp group. I am getting a stream of tributes to the Queen from parliamentarians from various countries. They are very moving. Quite a lot are in French, which I will not read out, but I will read out one from a politician from one of the OSCE countries:

“The death of Queen Elizabeth has reached the whole world. She was appreciated, admired and respected for her loyalty, humility and sense of duty. No nation could have wished for a better monarch. Her reign left her mark in modern history.”

Human Rights Act 1998

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for introducing this debate. I suspect it will be the first of many in which the Government will find it hard to defend the position they are in. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman, who reminded us of not just how far we have to go but how far we have come. That is a sign of positive progress. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—I have been on it before and am on it at the moment—and will say a little about the recent visit we paid to the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe in Strasbourg a few weeks ago.

Before that, I think it was Robert Buckland, the previous Lord Chancellor, who coined the Government’s approach to the Human Rights Act as

“A cure in search of a problem”.


Never were truer words uttered. Dominic Grieve, a previous Attorney-General, said:

“Did I ever feel that government was being rendered ineffective by Human Rights Act claims? No, I did not.”


There are very few defenders of the Government’s position, although I missed Suella Braverman on the television this morning. The Joint Committee on Human Rights looked at all this—indeed, we await the Justice Secretary coming to give us evidence. He was supposed to come next Wednesday but cancelled a few days before. I wonder whether there is a hint that things are changing in government on this; I have no evidence beyond his saying that he does not want to come at the moment.

I hope these debates will render one misconception obsolete. In some of our newspapers, there is still a misunderstanding between the European court and the European Court of Human Rights, which has sometimes bedevilled some of the discussion.

When the Joint Committee on Human Rights went to Strasbourg, the people we spoke to were taken aback by the idea that this country would significantly weaken our commitment to the European Court of Human Rights. Indeed, they were full of praise for both the way in which we approached human rights and the Human Rights Act, which they emphasised to us is viewed internationally as a gold standard and a model example of how human rights can be effectively embedded into domestic law and practised. It was almost embarrassing how full of praise they were for our position at the moment; they were dismayed at the thought we might withdraw from that position.

But it is nice, at a time when this country’s reputation, internationally, is not of a high order, for us to be so well regarded—we were of course founder members. It is true, as has been said, that our record, in terms of the European Court of Human Rights, is better than that of any other country in relation to size of population. We come out best because we do it so well, and because our courts have a good relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. That link would be cut by what the Government are proposing to do.

I was a colleague of my noble friend Lord Murphy for a time—in a more junior position, I hasten to add. I remember when the Northern Ireland legislation was going through, I had to certify that the Bill conformed to the Human Rights Act. I had never been a Minister who had sign this sort of thing, and I checked with officials. I said, “Please convince me now, I want to be absolutely sure what we’re doing”, and they did assure me. It was a healthy process for a Minister to have to go through that and be assured that what I was signing was absolutely right.

When the prisoner voting rights issue came up some years ago, I went with the human rights Select Committee to Strasbourg. There was dismay in Strasbourg at the thought that we would breach a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which we had never done before, because that would encourage the countries of the notorious abusers of human rights to say, “Well, if the United Kingdom can do it, why shouldn’t we?”

I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Murphy about the damage that this will do to the perception of human rights, whether it is the Good Friday agreement that would be weakened in Northern Ireland, or the position in Scotland. We are embarking on a dangerous path. I hope, even at the 11th hour, the Government will see sense and not pursue this path.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

103: Clause 31, page 34, line 45, leave out subsections (2) and (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard of proof for an asylum seeker to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention should remain a composite standard of “reasonable likelihood”.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103, 104 and 111 in particular, but before I do so, I want to say that, having listened to the Minister in the previous debate, it seems that he has almost answered the points that I was going to make. I do not want to be repetitive, because the Chief Whip asked us to be brief. A lot of the key points of principle that were covered in the previous group of amendments are also covered in this group starting with Amendment 103, so I shall be brief.

I was a little surprised—and this has gone right through our debates on this Bill—at the Minister saying that we can interpret the Geneva convention as we wish, that we are quite free to do it and that the UNHCR does not have any authority to indicate what is right and what is wrong in terms of the convention. I had always been brought up to accept that the UNHRC was in fact the guardian of the Geneva convention, and that it is the authority rather than each country doing its own thing. If each country does its own thing by interpretation, we shall not have an international convention at all and achieving international agreement will be much more difficult. Having said that, I was dismayed at the Minister’s view and equally dismayed when he said that the Bill would be even worse if it was his own Bill—I think that is what he said. I hope then that he does not have too much influence on things.

On Amendments 103 and 104, as I understand it from our deliberations in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and what it says in its report—I am still a member of that committee and contributed to the reports—the decision-maker need only be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution as defined by the refugee convention. That seems to be the present practice. However, the Bill seeks to change that—it talks about things like the “balance of probabilities”—by limiting the effect of the reasonable likelihood of persecution provision and making it harder to achieve an effective decision about asylum in favour of the applicant.

It seems to me that the Government do not like the Geneva convention and are seeking by a series of measures throughout the Bill to weaken it. That is clever if you want to get rid of the Geneva convention. The Government will say that they stick by the convention, but by being able to interpret it in all sorts of ways one can effectively weaken it to the point where it would be a different convention from the one which we have traditionally come to accept. I think that is what the Government are trying to do. I do not think the Minister will necessarily agree, but I suspect that is what it is.

Amendments 103 and 104 relate to the change from “reasonable likelihood” of persecution to a “balance of probabilities”, which is defined in various ways which I shall not go through now. Amendment 111 is about criminality and serious crime. It has always been possible, even within the Geneva convention, for Governments to deny asylum to people who have committed a very serious crime. That has been the practice. It has not happened very often, but the Government are now seeking to redefine that provision so that a serious crime becomes something lesser than what we traditionally regarded as a serious crime—in other words, again weakening the Geneva convention. That is regrettable. I do not think that the Government had any need to weaken the convention in this way, by a process of interpretation, so I regret that, which is why I am keen on these and other amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

On the first point, the position at the moment is that you have a reasonable likelihood test; what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, called the holistic test. What is going on here—and what should be going on—is that we have sought to identify a number of discrete questions and we have applied the appropriate standard of proof to each of them. On the second point, the noble Lord is absolutely right in that a serious crime was defined as one that meant 24 months’ imprisonment and we are now defining it as 12 months. We believe that that is appropriate and remains consistent with our refugee convention obligations.

I am not sure whether I should formally have said that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I thought we were going to have more Q&A. I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly clear explanation of why the Government are doing what they are doing. I am not totally satisfied that we have heard the full reason. Over the years, we have not had any arguments put to us that the 1951 convention was not working; the arguments have been elsewhere. Suddenly, we are given these different considerations for why we should pass this. However, we will be back on Report, having listened to what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I specifically support Amendment 117, to which I have added my name, but I support all these amendments around family reunion. I declare my interests in the register around RAMP and Reset as before.

Acknowledging that when people are forcibly displaced they end up in different places, often having lost family members, UNHCR research has shown that families often set out together but become separated along the way. Reconnecting those families, or, where some family members are lost, reconnecting people with other relatives, really matters. In seeking protection, those seeking asylum want to do so alongside the family that they have. This is better for individuals—their well-being and their future prospects—and for the community as a whole. It is therefore also better for social integration.

In my conversations with refugees and people seeking asylum, the whereabouts and safety of family is generally the number one preoccupation that they raise. This concern overrides everything. When we speak about family, it is not purely spouses and children but aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces. Organisations working with refugees, such as Safe Passage, know from their work that, when people have no safe route to reach their families, they are more likely to risk their lives on dangerous journeys to reach loved ones. Many of these individuals are children and young people seeking to reunite, often with their closest surviving relatives.

No doubt the Minister will give us the numbers again of how many families have been reunited under it, but existing refugee family reunion is narrow in scope. The threshold to be met under paragraphs 297 and 319X of the Immigration Rules for an adult non-parent to reunite with a child is “serious and compelling circumstances”, which is extremely difficult to meet in practice.

I appreciate that we cannot offer protection to all extended family members, but we can do this for some out of kindness, and it would divert them from using criminal gangs. Once they arrived in the UK, they would enter the asylum system to have their claim for protection decided.

Of course, we would prefer people not to have to make the dangerous journeys as far as Europe, and I expect that the Minister will cite pull factors to Europe as a rebuttal. With an ambitious resettlement scheme—which we will come back to—a broader definition for family reunion, as well as an increasing commitment to aid and constructive engagement with our near neighbours, I believe that any such pull factor to one safe route will be mitigated. The alternative is that people come anyway but in an unplanned way, risking their lives and causing further trauma.

I urge the Minister to at last give way on one item: consider this proposal as a pragmatic response to the need to find durable solutions for desperate people dying on our borders in order to reach their family.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all these amendments. I have signed three of them, and the only reason I did not sign the fourth was because my name did not get there in time; there were already four names on it.

Let me talk most particularly for the moment in favour of Amendment 117. In one sense, we are going back to the Dublin treaty, Dublin III and the discussions we have had in the past. At the risk of taking up an extra minute, I will go in for a little moment of history. We had an amendment—which passed in this House and the Commons—to the 2017 Act which said that the Government should negotiate to continue the Dublin III arrangements even after we left the EU. That passed in the 2017 Act.

We thought we were there—but along came the 2019 Act, and it was taken out again. We could not understand why. It was fairly innocuous in one sense, but it was pretty important in another. I was summoned to a room, I think here, and there were three Ministers: the noble Baroness; Brandon Lewis, who was the Immigration Minister; and one of the Ministers from the Commons. There were seven other officials there, one from the Cabinet Office, and just me arguing with them—I thought the odds were pretty fair. Anyway, I was assured that we would lose nothing by abolishing that provision in the 2019 Act. It was never explained to me why the Government wanted to abolish it. If it was going to make no difference, why abolish it? If it was going to make a difference, why take a step backwards?

By all standards, the Dublin III provisions for family reunion were working—not brilliantly, not fast enough and not for enough children, but they were working. I was assured that everything would be all right, but I am afraid that the evidence is not there. We cannot say often enough that where there are safe routes, the traffickers do not get any business. If we close the safe routes, the traffickers get business. It is logical, even for the Tory party. It is market economics, is it not? I do not understand how that can be contradicted.

I am worried about quite a number of the Government’s provisions. The Minister wrote a letter, which I have here; it is slightly depressing, but very helpful. However, I am worried that, on the whole, children in particular who got to Europe fleeing for safety are going to be ignored. I have not been there recently because of the pandemic, but the last time I visited what remains of Calais, people were sleeping under tarpaulins in terrible conditions. It was very depressing, and there were very depressing scenes on the Greek islands. I went to Lesbos, to Moria camp, just before the big fire there. Again, I am out of date now, but I understand that it has not got better. There are young people there who are desperate to join family members in this country. There are not many of them altogether, but there are enough for it to be an important point of principle. Surely, our test of humanity must be whether we support family reunion and whether refugee children can join their families here.

Safe Passage—a small but brilliant NGO with which I am happy to work and be closely associated—suggests that the majority of the children who qualified under Dublin III in the past would not qualify now. For all the optimistic noises coming from the Home Office, the fact is that the situation has got much more difficult in terms of getting children here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I think that it is perhaps time for a different view from this side of the Committee. I will briefly deal with Amendments 112 and 113.

Amendment 112 refers to “Refugee family reunion”. It is a wide-ranging amendment, and I suggest that it is unnecessary and not very wise. We already have provisions for the family members of refugees to come here. As others have mentioned, these allow partners and children under 18 of those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection to join them here, provided that they formed part of the family unit before they left their own country. That seems a reasonable basis for this provision. Of course, the family members do not receive refugee status themselves, so their leave will expire at the same time as that of the sponsor. But individuals on such visas are allowed to work, study and have recourse to public funds, which also seems entirely reasonable.

Indeed—I will save the Minister a task—we have granted visas to more than 60,000 family members of refugees since 2010. Since 2015, over half of those were to children. This is already a very substantial move in that direction. But widening the criteria still further would, of itself, massively increase those numbers and add still further to the pull factors drawing people to the English Channel, a route that has very little support among the public.

There is a very strong case for not widening these refugee routes. In the real world, we simply do not have the necessary infrastructure, service capacity, housing or school places. Many refugees are being put into the poorest parts of the UK. In this context, the Home Secretary said to a House of Lords committee on 27 October last year:

“We simply do not have the infrastructure or the accommodation.”


A Member of the other House said of his area:

“The impact on housing pressure at local level could cause further tensions if there is resentment about refugees receiving housing assistance at a time of acute … housing shortage.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 40WH.]


In setting our arrangements for refuges and their families, we must surely give due consideration to their impact on our own vulnerable communities.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just put this to him: if children are coming to join family members here, the norm would be that the family member has accommodation to provide for them, so the argument about housing does not apply to that group of people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I hope in what I am about to say that there will be at least some acknowledgment of the compassion and decency that we have shown as a country in the last few years—actually, the last few decades. It is such a hallmark of us as a nation. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Believe it or not, we like each other very much—we just disagree on quite a lot. But we have worked together in a civilised and friendly manner over the last few years, and long may that continue.

On the point about decency and compassion, Amendment 112 aims to expand the scope of the refugee family reunion policy. Under that policy, we have granted visas to over 39,000 people since 2015, over half of them being children, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pointed out. So, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we have looked into our hearts. We already have several routes for refugees to bring family members to join them in the UK, and it is important to carefully consider the impact of further amending our policy.

Family unity is a key priority, but noble Lords will know that we have a range of aims further to this, including ensuring that we have reasonable control over immigration and that public services such as schools and hospitals—and I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, who talked about the infrastructure of this country—are not placed under unreasonable pressure. However, I recognise that in some cases there will be exceptional and compassionate circumstances which warrant a grant of leave. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the guidance on exceptional circumstances will be published in due course. That is why our policy ensures that there is always discretion to grant visas outside the Immigration Rules, which may cater for the sorts of cases that do not immediately fall within our legal framework.

In terms of allowing child refugees to sponsor family members under this proposed clause, noble Lords will at least grant that I have been consistent in opposing that sort of policy, because of its negative consequences. It is highly likely that this would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged—or even, sadly, forced—to leave their family and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor relatives. Such an approach would open children up to a huge exploitation risk, which completely contradicts the hard work and commitment of the Home Office in protecting children from modern slavery and exploitation. We refuse to play into the hands of criminal gangs, and we cannot extend this policy to allow child refugees to sponsor family members into the UK.

Beyond this, many of the conditions set out in this new clause are already included in our current family reunion policy and are taken into consideration when decisions are made inside or outside the rules. All noble Lords in Committee should have a copy of the various routes. Our prime consideration in all cases is the best interest of the child in question—and so it should be. As the number of visas we have granted under this policy reflects, we are committed to maintaining family unity for refugees. Caseworkers are encouraged to use discretion in considering whether entry may be granted in family reunion cases. By setting out conditions in primary legislation, we would lose the individuality of consideration, and the discretion of caseworkers would be void. I can assure the Committee that all relevant elements of each case are thoroughly considered on their merits under this policy, and there is no need to set it out in statute.

I turn to Amendment 113, on family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors. I cannot support this proposed new clause. It tries to recreate the EU’s Dublin regulation in UK law with respect to unaccompanied children who have claimed asylum in an EEA state but have family members in the UK. When the UK sought to raise these matters with the EU, our proposals had very clear safeguards for children. This proposed new clause has none. It creates entitlements to come to the UK to claim asylum if the minor has specified relatives but it fails to consider the individual needs of the child. It does not consider whether the UK relative can actually take care of the child or whether the child would be better placed with a relative, potentially an even closer relative, in another safe EEA state.

The other point about this proposal is that it does not work unilaterally. I am sure the noble Lord will concur with that. It requires co-operation from EEA states. It is not possible to legislate through this Bill to take children out of other countries’ care and support mechanisms or their asylum systems. That requires agreement between states, which might not be possible and is certainly unlikely in the timescale of six months set out in the clause.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is about to stand up. Might I finish this point about the EU before he does? As he knows, we sought to negotiate with the EU on UASC family reunion and continue to talk to it on this important issue. However, at this point I cannot comment further.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hate to go over the past, but the whole point of having the Dublin III treaty in the 2017 Act—which was taken out in the 2019 Act, as I said—is that it has to be based on reciprocity. That was a sensible way forward; it is why we wanted to go down that path. That was the path blocked by the Government in the 2019 Act.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

The noble Baroness has twice in my hearing given the figure of 39,000 humanitarian visas for family reunion. Between Second Reading and Committee, I asked a Written Question on how many of those had been taken up, because I foresaw that force majeure, poverty or some other reason would prevent many of them actually being used. I got one of those answers saying, “We really cannot find or give you any figures.” Can the noble Baroness be a little more helpful on the real results of those visas?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

115: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from countries in Europe.(2) The number of children to be resettled under subsection (1) must be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.(3) The relocation of children under subsection (1) is in addition to the resettlement of children under any other resettlement scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in Europe to come to the UK.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is also about children, but it is about children who are in Europe and do not have family anywhere. It is similar to an amendment that was passed by this House and became Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. There is a long story to that; I will not waste noble Lords’ time on it now except to say that there was quite a lot of resistance then on the part of the Government but, eventually, the amendment was passed and Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, accepted it.

However, as I understand it, Mrs May did so under the pressure of public opinion because, at the time, people were horrified when they saw dinghies and people drowning in the Mediterranean. They saw a little Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach. I think that woke up public opinion. The public then came onside and decided that we as a country can do this for unaccompanied child refugees. That is a summary of the history there. Theresa May then summoned me again to see her and said that the Government were prepared to accept the amendment.

The Government then decided that they would cap the number; it was capped at 480, I think. The Government’s argument was that they could not find more local authorities to provide foster families and foster parents to take in more children—a point that was disproved by Safe Passage, which contacted a number of local authorities and found around 1,500 places. Whether they are there today, I do not know, but they were certainly there at the time. There is a problem, of course: there is increasing financial pressure on local authorities, so local authorities are willing to do it but probably cannot afford to do it. There are difficulties; I can see that. Nevertheless, Amendment 115 says:

“The number of children to be resettled … must be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.”


That is close to the wording of the earlier amendment some years ago.

The argument here is that, in principle, the Government should accept that we will take a few—only a few—unaccompanied child refugees in Europe, and they should settle on how many and the speed in conjunction with local authorities and with regard to local authorities’ ability to provide foster places. It is a simple proposition. I believe that public opinion is still supportive of it. We have sought support across the political spectrum on this because that is, I am sure, the best way to be successful. Faith groups have been very supportive; altogether, we have a good coalition of people supporting the principle in this amendment and the earlier amendment on Dublin III that I spoke about.

This amendment makes a simple proposition. It would not be difficult for the Government to say that, where there are unaccompanied children who have nowhere else to go and are stuck, we could take at least some of them—not all of them, but some of them—in this country and repeat the small successes of a few years ago. I beg to move.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 116 is in my name. I thank my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lady Stroud and Lady Helic for their support. We propose a workable, sensible and impactful solution for the Government to meet their stated objective, as set out in Explanatory Notes,

“to enhance resettlement routes to continue to provide pathways for refugees to be granted protection in the UK.”

Introducing a carefully designed, long-term global resettlement scheme with a numerical target will have the effect of meaningfully expanding safe routes for the world’s most vulnerable refugees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I will say from these Benches that, if the Government insist on bringing forward such controversial legislation, they cannot expect anything other than a number of noble Lords wanting to speak on these issues. If it were uncontroversial, noble Lords would not be queuing up to speak on the Bill. This is why we are in this situation, and we need more time so that we can adequately scrutinise this very controversial Bill.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and to the Minister for her stamina in continuing and continuing. I am sure she will go on until the early hours with great strength.

I will comment very briefly, as is my right. First, we had a very unusual thing happen tonight—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because I think he is about to wind up. We have generally done specific schemes for specific purposes and in responding to specific crises. We have the VPRS, the VCRS, the UK resettlement scheme and the ARAP scheme, and we will be doing the ACRS. They have all been non-statutory and I was trying to explain that we will be continuing in that vein for specific purposes, so that we can accommodate the most vulnerable. I hope that partly answers her question.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

I had already begun saying my thanks and praising the Minister for her stamina. I will comment very briefly that something amazing has happened this evening. Amendment 116, in the name of four Conversative Members of the Committee, is much more radical than anything produced by the Cross-Benchers, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the Labour Party or the Bishops’ Bench. It is amazing and I wonder what is happening to the Conservative Party here. I welcome Amendment 116.

I will comment very briefly on my Amendment 115. It very clearly says, “in consultation with local authorities”. There is no number set and no obligation, other than to consult with local authorities and set the number accordingly. Of course, I welcome the national transfer scheme. It should not be instead of the principles in Amendment 115, but it is very important that not all the pressure is on Kent and Croydon.

Lastly, the Minister mentioned the large number coming in lorries across the channel, but the figures will show—I am sorry that I do not have the full figures here—that, in recent years, the number coming in the back of lorries has been higher, but they have been replaced by the ones coming on boats. The total numbers are actually fewer, even though the ones in boats are more obvious.

I again thank Members of the Committee for the part they played in this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 115 withdrawn.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

In moving the amendment in my name, I should say that I have also put my name to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to exclude Clause 15 from the Bill—but I will wait to hear him and support him when he proceeds with that.

I will make a relatively short point in relation to Amendment 68. The provision relates to Clause 14 and the section of the Bill that deals with inadmissibility. Clause 14 is concerned with amending the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the exclusion in that Act, by way of amendment, of asylum claims by EU nationals. I am not certain why they have been selected for exclusion, but I assume it is because EU member states are bound by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the provisions of which, for the most part, mirror the European Convention on Human Rights and, in some respects, go beyond it. In Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention, persecution is obviously tied to the question of human rights.

The point I wish to make is simply that, under the new clause proposed by Clause 14—headed “Asylum claims by EU nationals”—to amend the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State

“must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of a member State inadmissible.”

Proposed new Clause 80A(4) states:

“Subsection (1) does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances as a result of which the Secretary of State considers that the claim ought to be considered.”


Proposed new subsection (5) states:

“For the purposes of subsection (4) exceptional circumstances include”—


and then it lists a series of matters under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b), with three proposed sub-paragraphs under (b).

Basically, short the point is that there can be persecution for the purposes of entitlement to refugee status under the convention even where the state itself is not the protagonist of the persecutory conduct but allows citizens, residents or others present within its territory to persecute particular groups or persons who otherwise fulfil the requirements of the convention’s definition of “refugee”. My amendment proposes adding to the exceptional circumstances in proposed new Clause 80A(5) the circumstance when the EU member state

“fails to protect its nationals, including in particular those who have a protected characteristic within the … Equality Act 2010 which is innate or immutable, from persecution by third parties who are not agents of the member State.”

This is not a fanciful matter. If we take the case of Hungary, which has been moving more and more to the right in political terms, we see a campaign that is based on undisguised anti-Semitism against George Soros’s support for universities there, and a constant encouragement by the Government there of homophobia and attacks on LGBTQI+ people. So it is not a fanciful point, and I suggest that it should plainly be added as one of the exceptional circumstances. That is the point. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that we have touched on some of these issues before, we have to face them head-on in this group of amendments. The issue is whether an asylum seeker has to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, and we might as well deal with that head-on because it is fundamental to many of our criticisms of the Bill. Bearing in mind the Chief Whip’s request that we keep our speeches short, I shall endeavour to do that, but this issue is so important.

First, there is a practical issue in all this. If we had demanded that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, the result would have been that every Syrian who reached Europe would have had to have stayed in Greece, Italy or Malta. That is clearly not a practical way for the world to function. If we make demands on where asylum seekers should claim asylum, so of course can other countries. It is quite wrong in practice.

The principle is perhaps more important; that principle being the Geneva convention of 1951. I would have thought it would be widely acceptable to say that the UNHCR was the guardian of the 1951 convention, and if the UNHCR has a view on that convention then that should surely have some influence on the Government—after all, the convention has been fundamental to human rights for asylum seekers over the last 70 years or so. The UNHCR has made it very clear that it disagrees with the argument that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, saying that:

“Requiring refugees to seek protection in the first safe country to which they flee would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which the refugee system is founded”.


No country close to the main countries of origin of refugees would ever have considered signing a convention if it meant that they would assume total and entire responsibility for all refugees. These are responsibilities that the international community has to share, and that is implicit in the 1951 convention. Therefore, some of the amendments, although they are in my name, probably seem to be compromising a fundamental objection in principle to what the Government are seeking to do. For example, my explanatory statement on Amendment 70 says that

“asylum seekers should not be removed to a safe third State other than the one with which they are considered to have a connection.”

One can argue about that. The Bill says clearly what it means to have a connection, and some of its definitions are okay but some are not.

Amendment 71 says that there must be a return arrangement in place. Clearly, unless we have a return arrangement in place with other countries, we cannot even begin to consider returning people. I say to the Minister: do we have a return arrangement with any country? If people come from France, across the channel—we all deplore the people traffickers and how they endanger lives, and the tragic loss of life that we have seen in the channel—unless there is an agreement with France, what do we do? If they have come from France, can we send them back to France or not? The French will not accept that. Incidentally, judging from this morning’s papers, our relationship with France is getting worse and worse; that is something that should be put right anyway, regardless of other considerations. Surely there must be a return arrangement in place, otherwise we cannot even consider this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Can I write to the noble Baroness on that? I suspect that I will misspeak if I try to answer because there are several things in that question that I am thinking about. I hope that she is okay for me to write to her.

The definition of a safe third state is already set out in the clause. It ensures that, even if a country is not a signatory to the refugee convention, the principles of the convention should be met if we are to remove an individual to that country. It defines safe third countries as states where an individual will not be sent to another state where they would be at risk of persecution or a breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights. This is consistent with our obligation under the refugee convention to ensure that individuals are not subject to refoulement; I keep pronouncing it as “refowlment”, which is completely wrong. This definition has been part of our previous legislation on safe countries and is a widely recognised definition of a safe third state; it is used in EU law under the procedures directive.

I want to come to point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the UNHCR says that we are breaking the refugee convention. There are three groups of amendments on this in Committee—not today, but shortly, so I will not go too much into the convention. We have already touched on it. We think that everything we are doing complies with our international obligations, including the convention. The first safe country principle is the fastest route to safety and widely recognised internationally. It is a fundamental feature of the Common European Asylum System. It is self-evident that those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country and that is the fastest route to safety.

There are different ways in which an individual may be protected and not all of them require entitlements that fall under the refugee convention. To define a safe third state in the way that is suggested by these amendments ignores the fact that other forms of protection are available to individuals which ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to. We will only ever remove inadmissible claimants to countries that are safe. Using this definition is not a new approach. It has been part of our previous legislation on safe countries. I do not think these amendments are necessary.

On Amendment 70, the ability to remove an individual declared inadmissible to any safe country has formed a part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020. This amendment would remove a provision that Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise. The aim of these provisions is to disincentivise people from seeking to enter the UK by dangerous means facilitated by criminals. They send a clear message that those arriving via an irregular route may be eligible to be transferred to another safe country, not of their choosing, to be processed.

I do not agree with the premise of Amendments 71 to 73A and 195. Agreements by a safe third country to accept an asylum seeker may not always be via a reciprocal or formal arrangement. It is right to seek removals on a case-by-case basis where appropriate. Doing so has formed a part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020. I do not think that these provisions are unworkable without formal agreements in place. That said, I do not disagree with the need to get formal agreements in place. Without providing that running commentary, that is what we are working on doing.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that to date we do not have an agreement with any country for the return of the people she is talking about?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 212 is to encourage sentencers to used community-based sentences rather than short prison sentences. It proposes strengthening the custody threshold as a principled starting point for reducing the current use of custody for lower-level sentences.

I favour this amendment over the potentially bolder Amendment 213 in the name of my noble friends, which seeks a presumption against a ban on short prison sentences. The danger of Amendment 213 is that if it restricts access to short prison sentences, in the current climate it could result in up-tariffing, which would not be a desirable result for the length of prison sentences.

As the law is currently drafted, imprisonment is reserved for serious offences. It is already established in statutory terms that an imprisonable sentence should be given only if there is no alternative. However, despite that, in practice people routinely continue to be imprisoned for low-level lawbreaking, fuelling an expensive merry-go-round of multiple short prison sentences.

The amendment proposed builds on principles already accepted in the sentencing guidelines. It enshrines these into legislation to better clarify the current statutory custodial threshold. Specifically, it intends to better ensure that custodial sentences are appropriately reserved for serious offences by better clarifying the assessments that are required to be made. The impact of imprisonment on dependent children should be considered in the sentencing of primary carers. This would limit the relevance of previous convictions in determining custodial sentences.

Persistence is a key driver of the current use of short-term custody and needs to be tackled head on. This amendment emphasises that short periods in custody should not be seen as an inevitable response to a person with a history of relatively minor offending.

The intention of this amendment is to shape the approach of judges and magistrates when considering a custodial sentence in a substantial proportion of cases which currently result in short prison sentences. However, it is important to emphasise that nothing in the proposed provisions would prevent a court from imposing custodial sentences of any length, including short custodial sentences.

In conclusion, I sit as a magistrate in central London. I put short custodial sentences in place, the vast majority of which are for people who have previously tried community orders and have either reoffended or have breached them on multiple occasions. It is very rare for a magistrate to give a short custodial sentence to somebody who has not previously been on a community order. Nevertheless, I think there is a genuine issue here—primarily the strength of the community orders which are available to courts. When the Minister responds to this debate, perhaps he will say something about the strengths and current revamping of the probation service. When sentencing judges or magistrates make short custodial sentences, the confidence that they have in community orders is an important consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 213. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby was somewhat critical of it. I agree with what he is seeking to achieve in Amendment 212. Amendment 213 goes a little further and is a little more precise. If I may say so, I think it is a better amendment.

To clarify, this is not a blanket ban on short sentences; it is a presumption against short sentences. Previous Governments have supported this idea. The evidence is that short sentences do not lessen offending. They are mainly concerned with non-violent offences. They do not provide meaningful rehabilitation. They can have a disruptive effect on family life and relationships.

The statistics are quite awesome. According to data from the Ministry of Justice, between January 2020 and March 2021, 20,000 people went to prison to serve a sentence of six months or less—44% of the prison population. This was even more so for women during the same period. Prior to the pandemic, the figures were even starker.

As I have said, the majority of people serving sentences of six months or less are in prison for non-violent offences, such a theft and drug offences. These offences are often linked to underlying issues such as poverty, addiction, homelessness and poor mental health. We know that these people really should not be in prison at all. Prison does not help them. We also know that short sentences have proven to be less effective than community sentences in reducing offending. Community sentences include interventions such as drug, alcohol and mental health treatment. They do more to address the root causes of offending.

Short sentences disrupt family life and ties; they damage housing, employment and treatment programmes. They do not provide any meaningful rehabilitation. These sentences contribute to volatility shown in prison.

Short prison sentences have a harmful effect on women in particular, hampering relationships with their families and children. Over half of women in prison report being victims of domestic violence, which often contributes to the offence that led to the prison sentence. I have had some help from a great organisation called Revolving Doors, and I have a quotation from one of its members:

“Although I was in prison for a short time I felt traumatised by the whole experience. In fact, sending me to prison was just a waste of time and money. I was released with no explanation and no support. I found myself back in the violent relationship which exacerbated my addiction which led to further arrests and trauma.”


Another argument for a presumption against short sentences is the cost. Of course, that should not be the main thing; the main thing should be protecting society, penalising people who should be penalised and helping to reduce reoffending. However, cost does come into it. The annual cost per prison place in 2020 was £44,640, compared with £4,305 for a community order. It is quite a dramatic difference.

The public, according to surveys, understand why there should be a presumption against short prison sentences. Probably, there are people who say, “Send them in and keep them in longer—six months is too short”, but the public are quite sensible and understand what is going on. I can only refer to previous Ministers, David Gauke and Rory Stewart, who both said it was necessary to introduce the presumption against short sentences. I think we can manage to do that.

The amendment of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, as I said, goes in the right direction, but it is not quite strong enough. This is such a simple measure—so simple that it is hardly worth spending time debating it. I am sure the Minister will accept it.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked: these amendments are so simple, why waste time debating them? Well, of course, the law already proceeds on the basis that these amendments propose. Section 230 of the Sentencing Code already says that the court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence was so serious that a fine or community sentence is not sufficient for the offence. Any court that passed a custodial sentence without stating the reasons for doing so would find that the sentence was overturned in the Court of Appeal. Any sentence in court that fails to consider and address the impact of a custodial sentence on a child or unborn child would not be upheld on appeal. So I entirely support these amendments, but I think we should be realistic about the current state of law.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Dubs Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on bringing forward the Bill, which has my support. It is a privilege to be able, as a Member of this House, to take part in this debate, because the arguments on both sides are important, well put and put in a tolerant manner. It reflects well that we are able to debate such a sensitive issue in such a tolerant manner.

All of us are influenced by personal experiences, and I want to share two that I have had. Some years ago, when a similar Bill was working its way through this House, a friend of mine was suffering badly from motor neurone disease. I used to see him frequently, and I saw him deteriorate very quickly. On one occasion, he was sitting there—he was able only to type out things on a keyboard—with his whole family when the question of that Bill came up. I said, “What you want me to do about it?”, and he said that he wanted me to vote in favour of it. He had brought his whole family, his wife and his two children, in order that they could collectively say to me that this is what my friend wanted and I should vote accordingly.

At about the same time, I bumped into a woman outside in the Lobby while we were debating this, and she begged me to support the Bill at the time. Her argument was that she had recently had to take her husband to Switzerland. His life was intolerable. She said to me that the tragedy for her and for him was that he had to go on that lonely journey to Switzerland—she was with him, but it was a lonely journey—unable to die at home with all his family around him. She thought that that was such a bleak prospect, and asked that we please do better for people like him in future.

Many people have referred to the question of safeguards. I would simply say that the present situation is far more lacking in safeguards than if the Bill were in place. What are the safeguards that stop anybody going to Switzerland, apart from the air fare? None at all. All the arguments against the Bill apply more so at the moment, where there could be enormous pressure on individuals, but there are no safeguards at all. I would argue whatever the weaknesses in safeguards under the Bill—no safeguards can be perfect—the safeguards are clearly better than the present position, where there are none at all. That is partly evidenced by Oregon, which has been cited a number of times. Many people in Oregon who wish to end their lives do so in palliative care, and some do not even use the right, they simply want the right to be able to do it, the feeling of autonomy, and then they do not use it.

Finally, I have tried to answer some of the many letters and emails that I have on both sides. I simply say this: I personally would not be happy to tell people that I know better than they do about how they should cope with their pain.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Dubs Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on her maiden speech. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Harris. I want to say something about refugee policy and add a few words, perhaps at the end, about the press and electronic media and, if time allows, a little bit about delays in the courts.

I hope when we get the borders Bill that, as a result of the consultation going on, it will be much improved compared with the policy statement of last March. My first point is that the Government propose to discriminate on the basis of how people make their journey to find safety. I believe firmly that the method of travel should not determine the right to asylum. I further believe that such discrimination would be illegal and a breach of the 1951 Geneva Convention. I am assured that this is so by many people, NGOs and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In any case, the policy would be unworkable. Is there any reason to think that European countries would accept the return of asylum seekers who, according our Government, have travelled here by the wrong route? Can we see the French Government accepting people who have come over here on dinghies or in the back of a lorry? I do not think so. If that policy—which our Government want—was adopted by all countries, the accident of geography would mean that Greece, Italy, and Malta would have had to accept thousands, indeed millions, of people who reached those countries for safety.

Obviously, we in this country cannot take all refugees. I argue, however, that we should take our share of responsibility along with other European countries. The Government have closed the two main routes for child refugees in Europe, both under my amendment to the 2016 Act and by not seeking to negotiate the continuation of the family reunion provisions of the Dublin treaty, which expired at the end of December when we left the EU. It is important that the Government ensure that there are safe routes to the UK for refugees. Of course, the Government are right in wanting to undermine the traffickers, who cause so much misery and so many deaths on the seas. It is the absence of safe routes that ensure that the traffickers are kept in business—it is a godsend to them. Clearly, we need safe routes for refugees to come into the UK.

Secondly, we should give priority to the family reunion rights for refugees. What could be a more fundamental right than the family reunion of people who have fled danger in their country?

Thirdly, what is to happen to the child refugees who are now in northern France or on the Greek islands? We cannot just say no to them and say that they have to take a legal route to the UK. In effect, we are saying, “There is no legal route for you and you have to take your chances on the back of lorries or in unsafe boats and dinghies”—something the Government have been anxious to prevent. The way to prevent it is by opening the doors again to safe and legal routes. That has been put very clearly by a British writer born to Somali parents in Kenya called Warsan Shire, who reached the UK at the age of one. She wrote that

“no one puts their children in a boat

unless the water is safer than the land”.

That seems a clear summary of what we should be about as a country.

I turn briefly to the internet safety Bill and related measures. It is ironic that at a time when the future of local and national newspapers is in doubt, many are struggling to survive because online giants such as Google and Facebook are paying nothing for news content. It is the social media or online platforms that should pay news providers for the news. In 2019, Google and Facebook took 80% of the £14 billion spent on digital advertising, and national and local news titles took only 4%. The Australian Government have shown the way to do it; we should do likewise.