European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Empey

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the difficulty with contributing late to a debate is that all the effective arguments have been deployed, so I shall be brief.

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Patten, just said. I remember meeting him when I was serving as a Minister there, when he was doing his magnificent job on the future of policing. I support very much what my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Browne and Lord Murphy said in deploying the arguments.

Just after the Brexit vote took place, I said to an intelligent and thoughtful businesswoman, “You know, there’s a real problem here. We’ve got an insoluble difficulty, which is Northern Ireland”, and I explained why. She said, “But nobody ever told us”. That may just be one person, but it is my feeling listening to the debate that none of those who were pro-Brexit have given this a thought—I have no sense that they have. I have argued with people about this. I was at a dinner and was sitting one seat away from an individual—I will not name him—who leads a very important Conservative-supporting think tank. I said to him, “You lead a think tank; you may have some ideas. What are you going to do about Northern Ireland?” He said, “Oh, it can be solved”. I said, “Give me a hint of how”. He replied, “It can be done”. “Well, how?” I asked. He said, “With will”. I said, “You haven’t got a clue, have you?”, and there was silence. I am afraid that is the position we are in. I would like to feel that the Government have some control over this but I have no sense that they have.

Somebody mentioned Senator George Mitchell. I was reflecting just the other day that I was at the opening of the Senator George Mitchell Peace Bridge, connecting the north and the south, and I thought, “There was a symbol of communication and unity, and of Ireland working as one economy”. Are we going to put all of that away and have some sort of border there?

I had for parliamentary reasons to go to Andorra last autumn. I had never been before, and there was a conference there. Andorra is not in the EU, and going in, all the heavy goods vehicles were lined up to be checked by customs, and there were border controls and so on. They let people go through—there were just spot checks on us—but there was the whole paraphernalia of a border. I thought to myself, “Are we going to have that in Northern Ireland at its 250 border crossings?” For heaven’s sake, I hope not.

Somebody said that technology is the answer. I know that has been mentioned before this evening, but if there was a technological solution that required no border controls, surely somewhere in the world, somebody would have already found it. There is not a single example of that anywhere, so to the people who say, “It can be done by technology; we can be clever”, and so on, I say, “Give me a hint of where it is being done”. Because if it is so useful and effective, surely somebody, somewhere, would already have put it in—whether at the border between Sweden and Norway, Canada and the United States, or wherever. There is no sign of that, so I challenge the people who say that technology is the answer to give us a hint.

I feel quite strongly and emotionally about this because I, along with colleagues, was at Castle Buildings when the Good Friday agreement was finalised. It was such an achievement. We all felt so happy and that it was a real success, and that there would be peace and we were moving forward. Now, we are in danger of turning the clock back for no good reason.

My heart sinks when I hear the Government say, “We are against the customs union and we will have nothing to do with the single market”, because surely the only answer, as has been said before this evening, is to be a member of the customs union and to have membership of the single market or a close association with it. There is no other answer; otherwise, we will have a hard border.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, naively, I thought we were discussing the relevance of the amendment to the Bill but I am afraid we have moved on to another Second Reading debate.

There a few specific items I want to mention about the amendment. I do not know how “hard border” is defined on the face of the Bill. There is disagreement as to what a hard or a soft border is, and they are not terms that I particularly identify with.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause says:

“Subsection (1)(c) applies unless Her Majesty’s Government, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the EU agree alternative specific solutions”.


I believe that those three parties should sit down to agree specific solutions. But unfortunately last week the Irish Prime Minister rejected that suggestion. Ultimately, that is one avenue of discussion that should not be closed.

Having listened for an hour and three-quarters to this debate, I sincerely appeal to Members to moderate their language. If you link the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and whatever border arrangements might exist on the island of Ireland as a result, with the return of violence, people will listen to that and pick it up as a justification. I appeal to Members to be very careful with what they say. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about people getting in the boat and going home—but we have to stay there. We know how much damage language can do in this situation, and things are being linked that should not be.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Empey

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I remember that at the time of the negotiations leading up to the agreement in Belfast, the EU was there in the forefront being supportive, and indeed EU finance developed cross-border projects and played a significant part in the process.

I want to make two points. First, whatever we think, we know that the Irish Government are deeply concerned about this issue. We are belittling their concerns if we say, “We don’t need to bother about this amendment because it’ll be all right in the end”. We all know that the previous Taoiseach, the present one and many other people are very concerned. We owe it to them at least to show that we are concerned about the situation.

My key point is that I think it would be right to have the amendment in the Bill if for no other reason than that it would send a signal to Brussels. It is all right saying that the Prime Minister will do her best in the negotiations, but I would have thought that in her position she would be much better off if we had the amendment in the Bill; it would strengthen her resolve and she could say, “The British Parliament is so concerned about it that we have put it on the face of the Bill”. That is why we should move forward with the amendment.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I notice that the amendment has been signed by virtually a who’s who of people who have had a high profile in Northern Ireland affairs over many years. For that reason, one has to take seriously what has been put before us. The truth, though, is that today we have really been having a Second Reading debate, not a debate on the amendment. I suppose that in the absence of a Speaker to slap us down, we will probably all be tempted on to that turf.

There are a couple of things I want to say at the outset. I have heard absolutely no one, in any political party or any Government, say that they wish to see a hard border. The closest we came to anyone saying we had to have one was the official to whom the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred. No one wants it. The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which a number of us are associated with, is working to ensure that it does not happen. Both our Governments are working to that effect, and Brussels has openly said it has got the message. With that sort of momentum, I believe we will find means.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, to the extent that at this stage I would rule out nothing electronic or technical, or indeed any form of technology. We do not need to paint ourselves into a corner; it all may have a part to play. I am quite sure that it already has a part to play in everyday life, in tracking criminals and so on, so we should not rule out what could be a contributing factor to finding what we all want, which is a solution other than concrete and barbed wire. Why should we rule out one possible solution at the very outset?

The House is greatly adorned by many senior legal figures who have demonstrated their robustness and capability in recent months. I am not a lawyer—I am absolving myself of any responsibility in advance—but we have had two recent cases that I wish to refer to. My fundamental disagreement with the amendment is that it is my belief that we are making a mistake in linking the Belfast agreement with triggering Article 50; they are two totally separate things. That is not just me talking. I refer to the two cases against Brexit that were brought to the Belfast High Court last September, one by a well-known victims campaigner and the other by a group of human rights organisations and Stormont politicians, including the leaders of the SDLP, the Greens and the Alliance and a Sinn Fein former Minister. The premise of each case was that taking Northern Ireland out of the EU would breach the Belfast agreement. The High Court heard both cases together and rejected them on every point.

It is worth a quick run-through of those points to demonstrate how comprehensively the breach has been debunked. The plaintiffs claimed that the constitutional establishment in Northern Ireland was being changed without the population’s permission, contrary to the consent principle underpinning the entire peace process. They said that the nine mentions of the EU in the agreement mean that membership is “inextricably woven” into the law enacting it. However, the High Court in Belfast came to the conclusion that references to the EU in the agreement are “incidental”—the judge’s own word. The Northern Ireland Attorney-General, John Larkin, decided to refer some aspects of this to the Supreme Court because, although he felt there was no link, he wanted to make absolutely certain that there was clarity at the highest possible level.

When the Supreme Court produced its decision in the Miller case—a split decision, although there was a substantial majority—it was unanimous on the issue specific to the Northern Ireland case, and said, without any caveat, “This is not a breach”. That is the highest court in the land. When it came to other treaty issues, such as the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland that deals with the border poll and issues surrounding that which are obviously linked to this group of amendments, it added that nothing about Northern Ireland’s removal from the EU breached any law, any treaty or any part of the constitution.

We were all horrified when the headline “Enemies of the People” appeared before us some months ago and, when the Gina Miller case came to a conclusion, everyone said that we must respect the views of the court and accept that a decision had been made. Here we have the clearest of clear decisions—that there is no breach of any treaty, of any Act or of the constitution as a result of the decision to leave the European Union, whatever we happen to think of that decision. I therefore contend that the amendment is defective, in that it tries to put on the face of the Bill an agreement that is not relevant, when no offence or violence is being done to the constitution of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that one possibility was to devolve immigration powers to Stormont. If we did that, I assure noble Lords that people would need a pass to go from County Antrim to County Down. The last thing we need is to devolve immigration powers to Stormont. Stormont cannot agree a budget; it cannot agree anything at present. Sadly, the place has fallen in on itself again. The idea of giving it an immigration power is fanciful, and would be extremely dangerous.

The concept of special status has been mentioned. That term referred to the special category status of prisoners in the Maze prison—or Long Kesh, as it then was—which led to the hunger strike. “Special status”, certainly to a unionist, means something less than being part of the United Kingdom—and that is exactly what it would be. The fact remains that either we are in the United Kingdom or we are not. When we were trying to design the Belfast agreement—I thank my noble friend Lord Trimble for giving me and the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, the opportunity to be part of the team that negotiated it—we found ways, through that agreement, of resolving these very difficult issues.

The problem with leaving the European Union is not breaches of the Belfast agreement; the political problem is leaving the European Union. It may be what is upsetting a lot of nationalists, and a lot of people in Dublin, but it is not relevant to this Bill. There is something I want to say to Ministers about this—something I have raised with them many times, both privately and in this House. When it comes down to it, we need assurances that there are red lines in the forthcoming negotiations, and one of those red lines must be that there will be no internal border within the United Kingdom.

We have been talking about the border with the Republic, and I totally agree about an open free border. I had the privilege of being the Northern Ireland Minister who started up InterTradeIreland and Tourism Ireland—two of the north/south bodies—and I can say that nobody I have come across wishes to see any border, in terms of a physical construction.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Dubs and Lord Empey

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I should first declare an interest as I spent eight years as a director of the Refugee Council before joining this House. Perhaps I should also add that I was a refugee myself, during my childhood. I am grateful to the many organisations that have provided ample briefings. It has been too difficult to read them all because so many came in, but they were very helpful.

I should like to make one or two general points. Immigration is such a hot issue. There are, indisputably, benefits to this country from immigration, but the problem is that those benefits are spread over many parts of the country and certain communities have resulting pressures on hospitals, schools, housing and so on. It ought not to be beyond our ability and skills to make sure that the communities that are welcoming and accommodating refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants should be helped with resources out of the benefit that goes to the country as a whole from our extra GDP.

It is important that we try to win public opinion as opposed to adopting a policy that is hostile to immigration and asylum seekers and says that we do not want them here. Of course we must have a sensible and controlled policy for immigration; of course we cannot have an open door. However, it is important that we try to win public opinion. It is somewhat ironic that, in recent years, Germany has become the conscience of Europe. We never thought Germany would set standards of human rights that would be a model for the rest of Europe.

It is important that we have a sensible way of distinguishing between asylum seekers, under the 1951 convention, and people who seek to migrate for economic purposes. There is confusion between the two, because it depends a bit on how effective our determination of asylum seekers is. I put it to the Minister that there are people who may not be deemed to be asylum seekers but who find it very unsafe to return to their countries. It is no wonder that some of them are desperate not to return—it is unsafe—no matter what asylum determination processes we have. We have to be careful of and sensitive to that. I have heard of people who just feel that it is unsafe for them to return, and they will hang on because of that.

I have a question about the devolved Administrations. Some measures will be transferred to the three devolved Administrations under SIs and I am not sure that they have been fully consulted or had a chance to consider the Bill. Will the Minister comment on that?

I want to talk about something that happened when the Bosnians came some years ago because it will affect the way in which we have Syrians coming here—not enough, but they are coming here. It is important that communities to which asylum seekers go, with the Government’s blessing, should be made to feel involved in the process so that they can be welcoming. When I was at the Refugee Council, we had some reception centres for Bosnians who came under the government scheme. I remember going to one in Newcastle. We had an open day for this centre, and we invited not just Members of Parliament and local councillors, but the police, the churches, the medical profession, community workers, voluntary organisations and so on. Altogether, it was a welcoming occasion, when the local community felt that they had a stake in the people who had arrived in their midst. I urge the Government to consider a model of that sort when looking at the Syrian refugees.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

With the noble Lord’s experience, both personal and political, would he not agree that the concentration of such enormous numbers of people in small geographical areas is almost unmanageable? It is natural for people to gravitate towards those who come from their own background, can speak their language and so on. It is difficult to get any kind of distribution that would achieve the noble objectives that he outlines.

[Lord Dubs]

That is helpful. If I go back to my past with the Refugee Council, in conjunction with the Home Office at the time, we set out to have reception centres in various parts of the country—we worked with the Red Cross and other organisations—so that the numbers would be manageable in terms of local community involvement. In that way, we would not have a vast number coming—although we could have accommodated far more than we did—and they would be dispersed in various centres around the country to make the process sensible and manageable. From my experience, it worked. That did what the noble Lord said should be the objective and worked pretty well. However, that is in the past and I want to move very quickly to concerns about the Bill.

I am worried that cutting support for failed asylum seekers will lead to destitution. For the reasons that I have already said about it being unsafe to return to the country of origin, people will want to hang on here. Removal of the right of appeal against a Home Office decision to refuse or discontinue support for asylum seekers is not desirable. Indeed, I am also worried that the right of appeal exercised abroad will simply not work.

I received this big document, a fact book produced by the Government, only last night, so I have not had a chance to read it all, but it states:

“Making a migrant depart from the UK before appealing is not a new concept”.

The powers were there before in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. But that does not make it right. An appeal from outside the country, without legal aid and without help, is very difficult to achieve.

As regards family reunion, where we have children here and other close members of their family are in other countries, it would be desirable to be generous in allowing such child refugees to sponsor their family members to join them. Maybe it goes the other way and they would want to go in a different direction, but we should make it possible for children here to be joined by their families. It would make for stability, would probably lower the cost of the whole process and would make sense.

Perhaps I may turn to detention. I should like to see an automatic entitlement to claim bail before detention starts; in other words, there should be a process whereby a person who is being detained should be able not only to apply for bail after a number of days, but that the process should get under way right at the beginning. Otherwise we have officials and administrators saying, “You will be detained”, and surely that goes against all our traditions. There should also be an upper limit on how long someone is held in detention before they can be bailed, even if the earlier claim does not apply.

I shall mention briefly two other points. There is tremendous concern on the part of the Government about driving licences. We do not have ID cards. That debate is for another day, but I think that as a country we were silly not to have them. The Government document states:

“UK driving licences can be used as a form of identification which can help an individual access UK services”.

We all use driving licences or passports time and again, so I think we have got ourselves into a muddle about this and we should not put the burden on people who have come here.

Lastly, of course it is difficult to remove people who have no right to stay here, especially given all the reservations I have expressed about some countries not being safe to return to. I am not sure that I have my facts right on the country, but I believe that some years ago Australia tried an experiment. If families are due for removal having exhausted their rights, they should be provided with personal support through people working with them. That is a way of getting their acquiescence in the removal process which the harsher regime suggested by the Government here does not achieve.