Probation Services: Prisoner Early Release Scheme

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, if we look at the position of the recruitment of probation officers, as the Minister said, we see that all the inspectorate’s reports show a dire need for new recruits in that area at the first and second levels. Why is it that we are already unable to recruit sufficient people to the Probation Service, which now faces the additional work of having to work with local authorities—which are poorly stretched for housing—and health services? We need these people right now, and that is the problem that we face. The recruitment of the 1,000 officers will occur some time in the future, but how are the Government going to solve the problems immediately?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord should know that the 1,000 are going to be in place by March 2025, and he can hold the Government to account on that figure. We are recruiting now; it is currently 14 November 2024, and, from memory, by March 2025 the 1,000 will be in place. We have improved support for probation staff and increased the pay level from 1 October to 1 April this year, to recognise and, I hope, retain people who are in post.

Small Boat Crossings

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the question. No, it does not breach the Labour Party’s manifesto commitment. As the noble Lord will know, we do not comment routinely—as did his Government—on the location or content of particular asylum hostels. But he will know that this Government are resolutely committed to restarting the asylum process and to saving an estimated £7 billion for the taxpayer in doing so. We are going to deliver a major uplift in returns, and we have already returned people. We will scrap the Rwanda scheme, which the noble Lord was an architect of. We will save several million pounds in doing that and we will put that towards speeding up asylum claims and ensure that we put this matter back on track. We will revisit the Labour manifesto in due course, but I give him a firm “no” in answer to his question today.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register; I am supported by RAMP. We all want to stop dangerous journeys to the United Kingdom, of course, and it is right that we deal harshly with people smugglers, but surely we must also try to take away the demand for the trade that these cruel people provide. Claims for asylum protection can be made only from within the United Kingdom, so the way to beat the smugglers is to provide a safe way of making an application. Will the Government examine pre-screening people from countries with a high chance of a successful application—such as Afghanistan at 96% and Syria at 99%—and then provide them with a travel permit giving them the right to make an application for asylum, thus bypassing the smugglers? Does the Minister agree that this proposal would enable the Government to regulate and predict the number of asylum seekers, as has happened in other parts of the world?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

We will regularly keep under review how we manage the case load on asylum. The noble Lord has made some suggestions that are certainly worthy of examination, but the Government are committed, overall, to meet their international responsibilities on asylum, to reduce the use of hotels, to smash the criminal gangs and to end the Rwanda scheme and use that money in a productive way. On criminal gangs, since 4 July—which, he will note, was the election date—53 people have been convicted of smuggling, 23 of them for running small boats, and they are now enjoying 52 years in prison as a result.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Grand Committee

I suggest to the Committee, and I hope noble Lords will agree, that it is in both the UK’s and France’s interests that any disruption in Dover caused by potential implementation downstream of the EES is minimised, and the Government consider this order to be a reasonable and proportionate way in which to achieve that aim. I commend it to the Committee.

[Lord German (LD)]

On first sight, this would appear to be straightforward legislation and would obviously merit support. But, on closer reading and on listening to the Minister, there are three areas of interest that I would like to question him about. One of them has come about as a result of his introduction, so we can clarify that in a moment.

My first set of questions surround the issue of juxtaposition in Calais. We as a country are going to introduce our own entry system. I hesitate to ask when it is likely to be brought in but, in a similar manner that the one for the Schengen area has been slightly delayed, I suspect that we may not be very far apart in what the two countries are doing. The first question is: is an equal juxtaposition going to occur in Calais and will that be only at the ferry terminal? The other question is: is there anywhere else in the United Kingdom where there is a juxtaposition? There are clear examples of working at both ends of a ferry terminal. I can tell noble Lords of my personal experience of Ouistreham. The French inspected all the vehicles, including my own, and then, when we got to Portsmouth, the British inspected the same vehicles for the same purpose. There was obviously wasted energy there because one inspection would have done on behalf of both within the secure zones. Is the ferry terminal the only place where there is juxtaposition? If there are others, will there be an equivalent need for this legislation? Perhaps in answering that query, the noble Lord may say when the British are going to have their own scheme and whether they are likely to happen fairly close together in time for their introduction? We will need a similar facility at Calais.

My second concern relates to the circulation area. Having read the legislation and the Explanatory Memorandum closely, it would appear to me that the circulation area is a link between the facilities at both ends, the western docks and the eastern docks. Anybody who has been to Dover will know that the connection between those docks is either a road, an esplanade with beautiful gardens and a walking facility and bicycle path alongside, or a beach.

I presume that the intention, although it is not mentioned in the information, is that the PAF officers will move between the two by vehicle. If that is not the case—the Minister indicated that there would be a map—I hesitate to think that we would have armed French officials walking along the beach together with tourists who would be using the same facility. I therefore presume it must be by vehicle, but if it is not, I cannot understand how that connection could take place without some other form of assistance. That question has to be answered, because if we are calling it a circulation area, something must be done about the road, the bike path, the esplanade or the beach to designate it. Perhaps the Minister might tell Sue, who has a seafood operation on that esplanade, which is well used.

My third set of questions relates to the separation between the eastern and western docks. As I understand it, the Minister said that all coach transport will first call at the western docks, where people will be asked to get off and go through the required inspection checks, then people will get back on the coach and it will proceed along the esplanade to the eastern docks. Part of the problem is that, as those of us who have used this route know, if you come via Canterbury, the entrance to the eastern docks is via a dual carriageway which comes down into them. That means that coaches using that route would have to travel along the seafront to the western docks, be processed, turn around and come back again. Even without the entry system, much traffic builds up along that route along the seafront in Dover to the eastern docks, so there must be traffic implications somewhere in this.

Nowhere in the documentation before us does it mention that this is for coaches only, so presumably this legislation can be used for any passenger in any vehicle travelling to France on the Dover/Calais route. Since the legislation does not exclude cars, minibuses or foot passengers, there is nothing to say that that cannot be achieved. It would make more sense to use it just for coach travel, even though that will have some implications for local roads. However, since it is not mentioned in the legislation, this legislation could be used for foot and car passengers, which would be a nightmare. Whatever route you are taking into Dover, having to travel back and forth across the area would create an incredible build-up of traffic and passengers on that stretch of road.

Once people have been through the initial Schengen checks, they will carry with them some form of statement, agreement or whatever, or they can simply turn up at the eastern docks and say, “I have already got the biometric Schengen agreement”. That means that some people will be allowed entry into the eastern docks on their own and some people, perhaps even two of them sharing a car, will have to zigzag back and forward if one has and one has not. The legislation is not clear about precisely what will happen when people have the Schengen documentation available and what happens if they are in a mixed vehicle when one might have it and one might not.

This all predisposes that the legislation does not talk just about coaches. If it is to be coaches, I suggest that it should be amended to be clear that this does not apply to every passenger going through Dover.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, we welcome this order. I will be brief. I thank the Minister for his detailed explanation of the regulations, which was helpful. Perhaps I can help him by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord German, that, when I was in the Home Office, the rollout of the ETAs to which he referred was very much on track and was highly efficient—I am sure it still is.

My party does not have quite the same forensic interest in the geography of Dover as the noble Lord, Lord German, and it is content that the regulations will deliver what is expected of them. But I do have a couple of brief questions. According to the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, no impact assessment has been undertaken. Is there a particular reason for that, or a perfectly innocent explanation? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is in the Room, I should say that I am asking this mostly because he used to ask me for impact assessments regularly when I was standing in his place.

I appreciate the detailed description of the powers of the PAF officers, but I did not hear the circumstances in which the use of firearms would be permitted. What are the restrictions, if any, on those officers? It may be that I just did not hear that.

Are arrangements in place to allow the employees of other foreign agencies to carry firearms when working in the United Kingdom? More generally, is this a reserved or a devolved matter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Does the Minister have a date for the introduction of the UK ETA scheme? The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, told us that it was going along admirably.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord German, asks an interesting and pertinent question. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, indicated that, under his administration, it was moving along swimmingly. Let me tell the noble Lord, Lord German, that it still is. I will leave it at that.

I shall answer a couple of the points mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. First, he rightly asked—again, my noble friend Lord Coaker has asked this question many times—what the economic impact will be. I can tell the noble Lord—I hope that this also reassures my noble friend—that the estimated cost of this is minimal: around £3,052 over a 10-year appraisal period. It was therefore well short of any threshold that required a full impact assessment; in fact, any impact assessment would have cost more than its results. So that impact assessment has not happened, but I hope the noble Lord understands why that was the case.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, also asked why and how PAF officers would potentially need to use their service weapons in the UK if they were carrying out immigration checks only. I need not remind the Committee, I hope, that any individual at any time can be a danger to those checking border paperwork and looking at issues to do with the regulation of this area. We do not know at any particular time who is going to be there and what threat they may pose. It is a requirement for the French authorities that they carry weapons accordingly, but I assure the noble Lord that that will be regulated by French national legislation in accordance with their normal working practices. PAF officers are required to carry service weapons; they do so while carrying out their work at the juxtaposed controls in the UK, but they do so under the same strict regulation that we discussed earlier in the Chamber in relation to firearm control. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

With those comments, I again commend this order to the Committee.

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2024

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin, I declare my interest: I am supported by the RAMP project. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for raising this important issue, which will set the agenda for the new Government as they move forward. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I say that we support the timely and accurate processing of asylum cases as well as swift and humane removal for those who do not meet the criteria for protection. To do that, we should front-load the asylum application process with decision-making expertise and legal aid provisions so that accurate decisions are made without the need for many appeals.

I will address the issue of legal versus illegal—we have had this discussion in the Chamber already. The thing you have to tell yourself is: you do not know whether people are fleeing persecution, torture or other things in the treaties, whether or not they are legal asylum seekers. That is why any asylum seeker is a legal, not an illegal, person. We do not know how many of the 52 people who have died in the channel in the past year would have made a justifiable claim for protection in this country and, therefore, would have been legal by definition. We must be very careful, when we use these words, that we do not misuse them. Certainly, with the way in which the legislation is being altered, that becomes the case even more.

The key aim of the original 2016 regulations, amendments to which we are discussing today, was to improve protection for particularly vulnerable people in detention. However, the changes that we are debating are of the previous Government. The present Government will make changes to this legislation, I hope, now that they have got control of matters. That is the first and most important thing we need to hear from the Minister today.

This is particularly relevant given that the regulations before us had an inadequate consultation exercise: it lasted only five weeks when, normally, at least 10 would be expected—there was also no equality impact assessment—and this was published before the Government responded to the Brook House inquiry. In the absence of the SLSC’s chair making a contribution, I wonder whether he would mind me quoting one of the conclusions that the committee reached. As I understand it, it said that the Home Office agrees that it will “logically follow” that these changes will mean

“detaining more of those considered vulnerable, despite a ‘presumption against’ such detention”.

The Minister will, I am sure, be able to confirm what the SLSC report states.

The inference from the current regulations is that people who were not really vulnerable were getting released, and that that is the reason why these regulations were put in place. They also bring into force changes to the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, which sets out the process for making decisions on immigration detention where an individual may be vulnerable to harm if detained. So, the question to be addressed today is: will the changes weaken the protective purpose of the “adults at risk” policy and risk exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention? If so, will this Government make the necessary changes in order to decrease the damage being done by these regulations?

The submission that we received from Medical Justice states that the changes weaken:

“the protective purpose of the Adults At Risk policy and risks exposing more vulnerable people to harm in immigration detention”.

It quotes, by way of example, the change in the wording from a

“clear presumption … that detention will not be appropriate if a person is considered to be ‘at risk’”

to a “general presumption of liberty” that

“is strengthened for those considered vulnerable under this guidance”.

Those are two crucial sentences, but clearly one is stronger than the other. The key concern in that submission was whether the overall increase in the number of people detained will also lead to a greater number of vulnerable people being detained, with the possible adverse effects that detention might have on these people.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, both talked about the second opinion issue of getting a second MLR. The Home Office provided data to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It is worth looking at that data: over a period of approximately 19 months, 199 MLRs were received for migrants in detention, of which 47 were referred for a second opinion report. Of those, 30 second opinion reports were received. As a result of those 30 reports, 14 cases were released and 16 remained in detention, although all but two of those 16 were later released following a further review. In total, therefore, 28 of the 30 cases with a second opinion still resulted in a release. Do the Government agree with the SLSC report that this data does not provide compelling evidence, as outlined by the report and by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her opening? What steps will the Government take to closely monitor its effects, particularly the number of release and detention decisions that are changed because of the second opinion, and the impact on those whose detention is extended to obtain a second opinion? Crucially, will these results be published?

The Brook House inquiry has already been raised by a number of noble Lords in this debate. That substantial report—three volumes—exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention by the Home Office. It was not a case of a few bad apples but systemic failure. The inquiry made, as we heard, 33 recommendations, of which only one has been taken up in full. Adopting those recommendations is the only meaningful way of ensuring that the mistreatment and abuse, including the breaches of Article 3 of the ECHR, do not happen again.

Supplemented by that, we now have the report by the independent monitoring board on the Gatwick PDA. It is worth while reading this into the record here today. That report says, in its recommendations to the Minister, that:

“Given the evident suffering and distress for parents involved and the unknown impact of the experience on their children, the PDA should be closed”.


There are, then, plenty of examples of where everything is not in fact happening in a good state. It is important that the fundamental mistake of reducing detention safeguards without properly considering the implications of a public inquiry is acknowledged, and that the public inquiry is considered as a route to making sure that we change more for the future.

I want to address some questions to the Minister because this is our first opportunity to ask the new Government about these matters. I do not necessarily expect an answer to all of them today, but I ask that the Minister writes to me if this becomes too tricky.

If the aim is to facilitate more removals of people with no right to remain in the United Kingdom, which must be the case from the evidence we have just been talking about from the SLSC and the facts provided to us, what assessment has there been to establish what barriers there are to increasing the numbers of people removed from the UK, who after due process do not qualify for leave to remain? What are the barriers that the Government see are still in place?

What impact have the recommendations and learning from the Brook House inquiry had on the proposed government review? Will those things be part of the terms of reference for that inquiry and review? It would be very helpful to know whether a timescale can be provided for that review so that we can judge the speed with which the Government are going to move on this process.

What progress has been made by the cross-governmental working group that was established to monitor progress against the Brook House inquiry recommendations and to drive forward implementation? Can we have more details about this group and its work?

Given the findings of failings of detention, will the Minister commit to re-engaging with the alternatives to detention that were piloted by the Government between 2019 and 2022? Finally, what evaluation and monitoring report is in place for this policy change that we are seeing before us today? If it is not in place now, when will it be in place?

The standards by which we treat people in our society should be constant; whoever they are, human rights are human rights. However, the processes are set out in guidance by the Home Office, and the evidence is that they are not happening. The Brook House inquiry shows that processes by which vulnerabilities are identified and acted upon are not working. Where we are removing someone’s liberty, protections have to be significant. On current evidence, that balance has not been struck, and the treatment and safeguards for everyone in detention, particularly those with additional vulnerabilities, are just not sufficient.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate His Majesty’s Government on proceeding with these regulations, although I of course acknowledge that like all regulations, they should be kept under constant review.

Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen that illegal channel crossings are at their highest level in more than two years. We need to secure our borders, and I once again welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that we protect our national interests on this matter.

I note that during this short debate, there have been some comments about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I commend my noble friend’s report on this subject. I point out that paragraph 12 of that report states that,

“the Home Office reiterated that ‘the right to liberty remains a fundamental principle which underpins all of our detention policy. In all cases the presumption is against detention’. However, the Home Office went on to say that ‘there may be circumstances where it is necessary to detain an individual in order to maintain effective immigration control’”.

Underpinning this debate, we should bear in mind that key line that the presumption is against detention. My remarks, therefore, will be for the benefit of—I hope—reassuring noble Lords who have expressed certain concerns about the regulations.

Moving on to medical second opinions, this statutory instrument will reinstate the ability to seek second medical opinions in relation to the detention of potentially vulnerable migrants. I welcome this and congratulate the Government on putting clinical best practices first. Medical Justice, the organisation that advocates for the legal rights of people in immigration detention, has opposed this in written evidence to the House. It states that a,

“second opinion on professional evidence risks prolonging the detention of vulnerable people and putting them through a potentially re-traumatising process”.

However, a second medical opinion is an entirely standard and well-established practice in the treatment of vulnerable persons. I refer noble Lords to the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:

“An application for admission”


to a mental health facility must,

“be founded on the written recommendations in the prescribed form of two registered medical practitioners”.

Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee should be reassured that a second medical opinion is a commonplace, uncontroversial and clinically accepted principle in the medical profession, and not to have it as an option would increase the likelihood of vexatious claims. To put a slightly different spin on the statistics cited by the noble Lord, Lord German, this is just an option; it does not have to be followed in all cases, and nor has it been up to now. These regulations also directly address the High Court’s decision of January 2024. That decision was not about the principle of second opinions but the fact that the previous regulations in effect authorised caseworkers to act contrary to the statutory guidance. These regulations correct that. Does the Minister agree that we should strive for medical best practice in the Home Office and reject this submission on second opinions? Does he agree that we should not in effect have a two-tier system that differentiates between vulnerable citizens and illegal migrants or asylum seekers?

Illegal Migrants

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Absolutely—my noble friend makes a valid point. My concern is that criminal gangs exploit people who either wish to come here illegally or are being duped when they potentially have legal asylum routes. We need to tackle those gangs at source, which is why we have put £75 million into border control, why we are working with international partners to deal with those issues, and why, slow though progress is initially, we will make an indent in that criminal gang activity.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to people who are duped and who are entitled to come to this country if they are fleeing for their lives. Although it is absolutely right that the Government should smash the gangs and reduce their opportunities, surely if we offer people a safe route to this country—when they are entitled because they are fleeing for their lives —that would reduce the demand that is met by these criminal gangs. Therefore, what consideration have the Government given to developing a pilot for a capped refugee travel permit for high grant-rate countries? I draw attention to my interests in the register: I am supported by the RAMP Project.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that there are a range of legal migration routes into this country and a range of ways in which individuals can claim asylum in this country. We have a number of schemes to bring to this country people who face terror at home; I note the Ukraine scheme. However, he needs to know that it is the absolute priority of the Government to ensure that we have managed and controlled migration. That involves tackling criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people who potentially have legal routes and, in some cases, those who do not. We need to look at this in the round with our international partners, and that is what this Government will do.

Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I think personal stories illustrate the broader point. I am pleased to stand in solidarity with these regret Motions and will not repeat much of what has been said, particularly about the lack of impact assessments and consultation in these matters.

I met a man last week, in Leeds, who is coming up to 80 and who has been married for 27 years, and his wife is not able to join him. They have been separated now and it is just miserable—I cannot imagine being in that situation myself. There are parts of Leeds where the average income is £27,500 a year. This is fundamentally discriminatory in that, if you are from the poorer end, your love counts for less than if you are more affluent. This cannot be just; it cannot be right in a society that we would describe as fair and just.

I do not want to prolong this, so I will put another question, as much of what I wanted to say has been said. It is a genuine question and I do not know the answer—there might be a perfectly good one. We are seeing in our universities a drop in numbers and, at the same time, a real financial crisis. Has any assessment been made by the Government as to whether there is any link between these two phenomena?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, it is perfectly obvious that those who have spoken already have demolished any thought that these changes are based on any evidence, or any critique of anything at all beyond the political philosophy that is driving them forward. I must first declare my interest, as laid out in the register: I am supported by the RAMP organisation.

What is clear from the addresses of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is that there are no real answers to the questions that the proponents of this instrument have been asked in many places so far. We are quoting the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee very importantly in this debate, because it has taken the time to examine this legislation, which is quite a brickful. It always amazes me that we want to try to pass legislation by the negative procedure when it is so important to people’s lives in this country, and so dense and so deep.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was quite clear. It said these changes had

“a lack of clarity about what the policy is designed to achieve”.

That is precisely what all the contributions so far have pointed out. It is quite clear to me, as I am sure it is to many in the House, that this is about dealing with a problem inside the Conservative Party—a particular branch of the Conservative Party—which is trying to be assuaged. As a result, we have a policy being implemented which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, described as blunt. It suffers because it does not have the impact assessment with it; it does not have any evidence to go behind it; it also has not taken the evidence that the Government could find from their own bodies and advisory committee.

Some 70% of the UK population do not earn £38,700. The Government are concerned about burdening the taxpayer, but everyone who has a spousal visa has no recourse to public funds. Can the Minister tell the House how granting a spousal visa will be a burden on the state, given that an individual on such a visa has no recourse to public funds—and, by the way, has probably already paid huge amounts in fees to get to that position. A quite extraordinary number of pounds have to be spent on those fees.

Then there is the fairness of these changes. They will obviously have a greater impact on lower average-income earners, as has already been described, but, crucially, they will have a disproportionate impact nationally and regionally. The new MIR is quite likely to remain below the average in London, because it probably matches London earnings, but it will certainly not be so across swathes of the United Kingdom where salaries are lower. Around 50% of UK employees earn less than the £29,000 threshold and 70% earn less than £38,700. So how do the Government explain the fairness in families in some regions of the United Kingdom being much more likely to be entitled to reunite than those in other areas—in fact, in the majority of the United Kingdom? How is this consistent with the Government’s levelling-up agenda?

The Migration Advisory Committee, in its 2020 report, said:

“We also think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route”.


Noble Lords might have thought that the Migration Advisory Committee—the Government’s advisory committee—would have been consulted about these changes, but it was not and the policy goes against its advice, had it been asked. Perhaps it was not consulted because it would have given contrary advice. So I ask the Minister: why was the Government’s own advisory committee not consulted prior to this decision?

One of the most objectionable aspects of these changes is their impact on children. Undoubtedly, they will lead to an increase in the length of children’s separation from a parent before any visa is obtained. These children are often British children. There will also be a greater impact on women: 36% of employed women and 58% of men earned enough to meet the £29,000 threshold in 2022. For the £38,000 threshold, it was 21% of women and 39% of men, so clearly there is gender discrimination.

Inadmissible Asylum Seekers

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord German]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of people who have entered the United Kingdom without prior permission since 7 March 2023 and so have been deemed inadmissible to the asylum system, and what plans they have to deal with them.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I must first draw attention to my interest in the RAMP organisation, which supports me, which is in the register.

My purpose in tabling this topical question debate is to establish facts about the Government’s policy in respect of the 73,000 asylum applications, covering roughly 90,000 people, that have been made since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill on 7 March 2023. The Minister will know very well that we on these Benches do not support the Government’s policy on removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda or provisions in the Illegal Migration Act. However, he will be very pleased to know that I do not intend to re-rehearse those arguments today.

Today I am seeking answers from the Minister to confirm how the Government intend their policy to be applied. This matters to the taxpayer, to the 90,000 people caught up in it and to the many organisations that are seeking to support them. I also seek to pursue some of the questions to which the Public Accounts Committee in the other House sought answers in its evidence session of 5 April 2024.

Those individuals who arrived in the UK on a visa, for example as a student, and then later claimed asylum, for reasons such as civil war breaking out in their own country, would have their asylum claim considered in the UK. However, as there is no legal route by which to enter the UK to claim asylum, once the Illegal Migration Act is fully in force most of the asylum applications made since 7 March 2023 will be deemed inadmissible. This means they will have lodged an asylum application but, due to their method of travel to the UK, their cases will have been placed on hold pending a third country accepting their removal—namely, Rwanda. Their asylum claim is not admitted into the UK asylum system, so the substance of their claim would never be assessed in the UK. They are effectively in indefinite limbo until they can be sent to a safe third country.

In the Permanent Secretary’s letter of 25 April to the chairs of the Public Accounts and Home Affairs Committees in the other House, he confirmed that the exact number of these asylum applications deemed to be inadmissible would

“only be confirmed once the full triage”

of these arrivals had been completed. So my first question is: what do the Government predict will be the number of inadmissible cases from 7 March 2023 to the present, based on their current modelling?

We have two cohorts of people who are in limbo within this 73,000. The first is the Illegal Migration Bill cohort, who arrived between 7 March 2023 and 19 July 2023. These amount to 21,313 applications as of 14 April this year. These individuals are not subject to the duty to remove, but they are subject to the ban on leave to enter or remain, on settlement and on citizenship. Whether they are inadmissible into the asylum system is a decision to be made by the caseworker, following guidance. What happens after that is what I am trying to establish. At the moment, the Government appear to be doing their best to pretend that these people do not exist—maybe they are hoping that they can leave it for the next Government to sort out.

In the Commons Public Accounts Committee evidence hearing of 15 April, the director general of the customer services group at the Home Office stated that this March to July 2023 cohort would start to be processed this month. Has that practice of processing commenced? Secondly, when would the Minister expect the processing of the asylum applications of the March 2023 to July 2023 cohort to be completed? Thirdly, have the 2,500 caseworkers, previously recruited to clear the legacy backlog, been retained? If so, are they being used to clear this backlog?

We have a bizarre situation here, in that individuals can be admitted into the UK asylum system if they are deemed not to have arrived irregularly. However, despite the ban on granting leave having come into force last July, when the Act received Royal Assent, there has been no guidance since then on how the ban is being applied to them. How is the ban on leave being applied? When will guidance be published about how leave can be granted to this cohort and what rights and entitlements should be attached to that leave?

The second limbo cohort within this 73,000 is what I call the Illegal Migration Act cohort, those who have claimed asylum having arrived from 20 July 2023 to the present day. As of 14 April, there were 51,926 cases, representing around 64,000 people. Of course, this figure is growing each day as more people arrive. It might be wise to remember that, despite the Government’s focus on small boats, small boat arrivals accounted for only 37% of the total number of people claiming asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2023.

Once Sections 2 and 5 of the Illegal Migration Act are commenced, asylum claims meeting the criteria will be automatically deemed inadmissible, with the duty to remove to a third country. I would like an answer to the question: what is the Government’s plan for these people? This is a matter of capacity, from both the Rwandan side and our own.

Although the Government insists the Rwanda scheme is uncapped, the reality is that only a small proportion of these limbo cohorts will ever be removed there. The Rwandan Government spokesperson said last weekend that Rwanda could relocate “thousands” over the course of the five-year partnership. There is no indication from Rwanda that this amounts to tens of thousands in the first year.

The Government intend to detain people prior to their removal to Rwanda. Currently there are about 2,200 detention spaces in the UK. Given that there are immigration detainees not related to this Rwanda policy already occupying detention spaces, what detention capacity is available for those being removed to Rwanda? Are there plans in place to create more detention spaces?

Current evidence suggests that the majority of these 90,000 people will remain indefinitely in limbo. They cannot have their asylum claims processed in the UK and they cannot be removed to a safe third country—with some few exceptions with which I agree, particularly in relation to Albania and India.

Without permission to work, they will have to rely indefinitely on asylum support, and there is a huge risk that many will be exploited in the black market. This is what closing down the asylum system looks like. Have the Government made an assessment of the impact of this policy on the numbers of people entering the black economy and very likely being exploited? This is not good for the individuals concerned, our communities or the taxpayer. The Government need a plan, and we need to understand what it is. They cannot simply pretend that this group of people do not exist. Amid the numbers, the data and policy detail, it is essential that we remember the human cost of this policy failure—people’s lives held in suspension. What assessment has been made about the long-term impact of this period of limbo on individuals and communities?

I will turn to money. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact highlighted in its last report the increasing amount of aid spent on asylum seekers and refugees from the aid budget—28% in total. In the Public Accounts Committee, the Home Office director-general for migration and borders was asked if that money could continue to be used, and he said it was an issue under review with the Treasury regarding the ODA rules and applicability, because the asylum seeker classification is the one that permits ODA funding for their first year in a country’s asylum system. Can the Minister tell us if ODA money can be used to support this growing cohort of in-limbo asylum seekers? I hope that he can provide answers, which I am seeking on behalf of not just the tens of thousands of people in this position and the organisations that support them, but the taxpayer who will have to fund it.

We need transparency around what the Government’s policies are. These are not simply operational matters; they are policy issues for which the Government has responsibility. Apart from the huge cost of the scheme, people need to understand what will happen to them. I remind the House that these people are illegal only because the Government have deemed them so; they are men, women and children who have sought protection in the UK, yet the Government have refused to consider their cases. The top nationalities of these people are Afghan, Iranian, Eritrean and Sudanese, which previously had grant rates of 98% to 99% for entry into this country. They are refugees. The current policy will hold these people in a government-imposed limbo, in a state of purgatory. It is not a good place; it denies hope and devalues the futures of so many who have fled for their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As noble Lords are aware, the UK has a long and proud tradition of providing safe haven to those who genuinely need our protection, and we remain committed to providing such protection, in accordance with our international obligations.

The matter of the Government’s proposed approach to addressing the cohort of individuals who have entered the United Kingdom since 7 March 2023 is therefore an important one. It may be helpful if I set out, in general terms, the Government’s approach and recent successes in clearing the asylum legacy backlog, give a brief update on the Government’s aims for deciding the asylum claims which have been made since 7 March and clarify how inadmissibility provisions will be applied. Before I do that, again none of the speakers addressed the simple question of why people have to claim asylum in the first safe country. It seems to be forgotten repeatedly and often that these arrivals in this country have all left a safe third country. It is a long-standing principle that those in need of genuine protection should claim asylum at the earliest opportunity, in the first safe country they reach, and this is the fastest route to safety.

I remind the House of the progress the Home Office made in 2023 in clearing asylum legacy backlog. As noble Lords will recall, the legacy backlog comprised 92,601 asylum claims lodged before 28 June 2022, when provisions within the Nationality and Borders Act came into force. The Prime Minister committed on 13 December 2022 to clear this backlog by the end of 2023. The Prime Minister’s commitment to clear the backlog was delivered at the end of the year and, in total, 112,000 asylum cases were processed in 2023. Increased efficiency and capacity saw the Home Office not just clear the backlog but exceed it by also processing over 25,000 asylum claims lodged on or after 28 June 2022. To achieve the success of 2023, the Government enhanced processing and deployed an additional 1,200 caseworkers, thus meeting the target to double the number of asylum caseworkers and increasing productivity.

As of 14 April 2024, there were 2,545 full-time equivalent decision-makers in post, answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord German. That is nearly double the number of asylum caseworkers in April 2023. In addition, the streamlined asylum process was developed as part of the legacy backlog clearance strategy for adults. It centred around accelerating the processing of manifestly well-founded asylum claims from legacy claimants of certain nationalities, such as those from Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Yemen and, more recently, Sudan. This involved the use of an asylum questionnaire provided to claimants allowing them to explain why they required protection status in the UK. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees welcomed the introduction of the streamlined asylum process, publicly stating

“Removing the requirement for substantive interviews through the use of a questionnaire for asylum seekers from certain countries with very high grant rates should meaningfully reduce the current backlog of cases awaiting adjudication. Simultaneously, the procedure should uphold appropriate safeguards by maintaining individual interviews before any negative decisions are made”.


Since April 2023, children’s claims from high grant rate nationals of Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam have also been considered through the streamlined asylum process. It remains a key priority to consider claims as efficiently as possible, to clear the asylum backlog and to reduce the number of people on asylum support, in turn reducing the burden on taxpayers. By our speeding up decision-making, asylum seekers are given the certainty they need to plan for their future. In 2024, flow claims—those lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023, as well as asylum claims from those who arrived before 7 March 2023—are being prioritised now that the legacy claims have been cleared.

The Home Office has continued to build on existing processes and systems in its approach to tackling this latest cohort of claims. For example, the streamlined asylum process was extended to include eligible claimants from 28 June 2022 to 6 March 2023. During July 2023, the streamlined asylum process for children’s claims was also rolled out to claims from the same nationalities lodged from 28 June 2022 until 6 March 2023. We have recently redesigned the statement of evidence form for children, making the process quicker and more streamlined. The process for accompanied and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children enables cases to be progressed more quickly.  The latest provisional data shows that, as of 14 April 2024, there were 7,358 outstanding claims made on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023. This demonstrates that we are making good progress on clearing the remaining claims. That means that the Government have made excellent recent progress in clearing both the legacy and, shortly, the flow backlog of asylum claims. The Government remain committed to their objective of deterring illegal migration to the UK and stopping the boats.

The Government are clear that those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, and not put their lives at risk by making unnecessary and dangerous journeys to the UK. Illegal migration from safe countries undermines our efforts to help those most in need. Controlled resettlement, via safe and legal routes, is the best way to protect such people and disrupt the organised crime groups that exploit migrants and refugees.

[Lord German (LD)]

I wonder if I could ask about those who come directly to this country and those who pass through other countries? Given that nearly two-thirds of all people who are here irregularly do not come in small boats, what percentage have come directly? For example, those who overstay visas have not come via a third country but have arrived directly. I understand that the Government do not know how to split up that two-thirds, but is there any data on the numbers arriving here directly in that 60-odd percent?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I can reassure the noble Lord that I am coming to a more detailed set of number shortly, if he will bear with me. The safe third country inadmissibility policy is a longstanding process, intended to encourage individuals to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is an established part of international asylum procedures, applied across the EU and explicitly provided for in UK law, including in the strengthened provisions introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

 With the exception of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, those who choose to travel from a safe third country such as France, and then claim asylum in the UK may find their claim treated as inadmissible to the asylum process. That means that the UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal to a safe country.

In answer to the right reverend Prelate about facilities in France, anyone detained at the border is held for the shortest time possible. We prioritise processing children and vulnerable people as quickly as possible. Individuals in detention are held in safe and decent conditions. There are established procedures in place in every facility to monitor people’s welfare and safeguarding needs. These facilities are subject to inspection by HMG’s Inspector of Prisons, accompanied by their French counterpart, to ensure that they are of the highest standards.

 It is in this context that current removals to Rwanda may apply. Any individual who is otherwise suitable for an inadmissibility decision and who has arrived in the UK through dangerous, illegal and unnecessary methods since 1 January 2022 may be considered for relocation to Rwanda, under the Migration and Economic Development Partnership. Individuals will only ever be removed to a third country when that country is safe and removal is appropriate, according to the individual’s particular circumstances.

Once commenced, the provisions in the Illegal Migration Act will further strengthen our approach to inadmissibility.  When a person meets the four conditions under Section 2 of the Act, they will be subject to the duty to remove. Any asylum or human rights claims made against the person’s country of origin will be declared inadmissible. The UK will not consider the substance of the person’s claim and will seek their removal either to their home country—if it is safe to do so—or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.

As of 14 April 2024, there were 21,313 outstanding claims made between 7 March and 19 July 2023. In addition, there were 51,925 outstanding claims made on or after 20 July 2023. I would caution that this data is provisional. It is taken from live operational databases and has not been cleansed to remove duplicates. The finalised figures as at the end of March 2024 will be published later this month.

 

The right reverend Prelate also asked me about the numbers of missing children. There are 111, they are all male and 98 have reached the age of 18. There are 13 left who are under the age of 18.

These provisions will apply to both adults and children. The duty to remove does not require the Secretary of State to make removal arrangements for unaccompanied children, but there is a power to remove unaccompanied children in limited circumstances, such as family reunion with a parent. However, any asylum or human rights claim made against the child’s country or origin will be declared inadmissible. Taking these measures will send a clear message that children cannot be exploited and cross the channel in small boats for the purpose of starting a new life in the UK.

Once commenced, these inadmissibility provisions will apply to those who are subject to the duty to remove under the Illegal Migration Act, and who entered or arrived illegally on or after 20 July 2023. As all asylum claims are generally worked in date order, the next cohort of asylum claims that are due to be progressed are those made by individuals who arrived in the UK after 7 March 2023. Further information will be published on our plans to decide these cases in the coming weeks. I am afraid there is no more I can say at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt again, but can the Minister answer the question? His officials told the committee in the other House that there is ongoing discussion about whether the continuous use of ODA is possible. Have those discussions with the Treasury reached a conclusion, and is the Minister able to say that it is certainly possible to spend this money now?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not have that information to hand. I will see whether I can find it, and I commit to write to the noble Lord if I can.

I turn to other aspects of the various questions I was asked. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, asked about individuals who were previously present in a safe third country and entered the UK by a dangerous and unnecessary method. I am afraid that they are liable to relocate to Rwanda. It is an ongoing operational matter, so I am unable to provide a running commentary on individual numbers or cases.

In answer to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about colleagues, I note that he now has a colleague who says:

“Don’t trust Labour on immigration they really want open borders … The Government wants to close legal loopholes … Labour seems intent on creating them”,


and

“Labour … are not serious about stopping small boats, tackling criminality, protecting people from the smuggling gangs or saving lives in the Channel”.

What on earth did the colleague mean by all that? I think the noble Lord knows.

As I hope I have made clear, the Government recognise the crucial importance of having in place a robust operational plan to deal with individuals who have outstanding asylum claims in the UK. We are getting on with the job; we will have a lot more to say on this subject, and I expect to be questioned on numerous future occasions on this very subject. I have little else to add.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will dwell on the amendments before us. While I would love to stray into almost Second Reading speeches, like we have heard, on the state of the Bill as a whole, the issue before us are the very specific amendments that have been put down.

I want to say something about what the House of Commons has been doing. Other people have been calling this House the body that is responsible for delay. The delay is not caused by this House. We could have been dealing with this on other days earlier than this. It is at the choosing of the Government, in the other House, how this Bill plays through this House. Therefore, we cannot be accused of not doing our job properly, because that is what we are doing. It is the Government who have been slowing down the business of the Commons, for whatever reasons they feel are acceptable to them. This House is doing the proper job; certainly, we are with these amendments before us today, because the reasons we are debating and pressing these very important safeguards on this House and on this Parliament are so important.

We are asked to declare, in the Bill we are debating, that Rwanda is safe for refugees and asylum seekers. Yet, when asked when the policy on refoulement—the most principal policy that was pointed out by the Supreme Court—is to be put in place, the Government could not give any answer at all. I ask the Government tonight: what assurances can they give that the policy on refoulement, and the appropriate training and systems to support it, will be in place in the next 10 to 12 weeks? That 10 to 12 weeks is important, given the statement by the Prime Minister this morning.

A second protection, in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is for the future, since as the Bill stands it binds a Secretary of State in perpetuity.

I now turn, very briefly, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I listened very carefully for repetition, which he asked us to do. It seemed to me that there was one very specific group of people who will not be subject to the concession called for by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. It will not work for people who have a justifiable claim and are, at this moment, outside the United Kingdom. That is a very specific group of people. Some of them in Pakistan are being threatened with being sent back to Afghanistan, based upon the experience of a Bill of a similar sort to the one we are debating tonight.

My belief—and, I hope, the belief of this House and, certainly, the belief of these Benches—is that, for those people who were allies, there must be a record somewhere. There must be a record, if they were an ally of ours. Somewhere they were employed by the British forces, or somewhere they were being paid for out of British funds. Somewhere they will be on a company record for supplying services to the United Kingdom’s forces. So it is the Government who will know who these people are, and they will know when an application comes before them, whether there is the prospect of success for them. What I did not hear tonight, and this House did not hear tonight, was a copper-bottomed guarantee that those people, seeking applications to come here from outside the United Kingdom, will not be sent to Rwanda either. That guarantee was not given, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will reflect on that matter, when he comes to discuss this at the conclusion of this debate.

In conclusion, it seems to us on these Benches that, despite what we feel about this Bill—and I echo many, in fact all, of the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, because we have made them, and we made them a right at the beginning of the Bill at the appropriate time—now is the time for seeking amendments that actually safeguard critical groups of people and, most importantly, the critical role this Parliament plays. We are being asked to make a judgment. The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, helps this Parliament make some brave and right choices—to be able to tell the truth about matters, rather than leaving it to fiction.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, since he asked me what we would do, if—and I emphasise “if”—we win the next election: we will repeal the Bill. We have been quite clear about that, but that is not what we are debating this evening. We are debating the Bill that we have before us and, in particular, the two Motions A1 and B1.

I think it is important that we dispel some of the myths around the debate that has taken place today, started by the Prime Minister this morning in his press conference. He seemed to imply that the debate in this Chamber is between those who want to stop the boats and those who do not, whereas I have made the case continually, as every Member across this Chamber has done, that we all agree that we need to stop the boats; the dispute in this place is about exactly the right way to go about that and to do that. That is the important distinction that lies between us.

We believe that the Bill as it stands is inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country and, as such, that is why we oppose it and the various arguments that have been made. Never have I stood at this Dispatch Box and at any time said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House that we will block the Bill. That has never been the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition, and never been something we have said from this Dispatch Box; indeed, we voted against a Motion that was put before us some weeks ago to do that. But we have also said that we would stand up for the proper position of this House. The proper role of this Chamber is to argue, to debate, to revise, to suggest amendments and to put forward that case. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I hope he is in a position, in a few months’ time, where he is stood here doing exactly the same as I am, and being as a frustrating and challenging as I am trying to be to him, because that is the proper role of the House of Lords. Therefore, it is important that we do that.

I cannot remember which noble Lord said this, but if the Government were as worried about the delay as they say they are, why on earth did they not sort all this out before Easter? All their own side were whipped to be here on a Monday after we debated on the Wednesday, only to have a further email go out to say they would no longer be required. That is how much of an emergency the legislation was. The Government could have cleared this before Easter, and yet they did not, presumably because the Prime Minister could not guarantee that everything was in order for the Bill to work. Let us not talk about the House of Lords delaying the legislation; let us look at the Government’s timetabling of their own business and their inability to get that right. Even today, the Government in a press conference to the lobby, as I understand it, could not give any detail of the numbers that they expect to be subject to the provisions of this treaty—the numbers of flights they expect or, indeed, the exact date when it will take place.

This has never been an argument about the integrity of this Chamber. I do not believe that there is a single Member of this Parliament, in the other place or this Chamber, or any of the journalists who report our proceedings, who does not have proper integrity. I would not have gone on the radio, as a Government Minister did this morning, and accused this House of bordering on racism in the way in which it debated the Rwanda treaty. That is a shocking and appalling comment to make. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, thinks, and I do not think that anyone in here has been bordering on racism in anything that they have said. I have heard detailed arguments and positions espoused by many, but nobody in here—or in the other place, or anybody who reports on these proceedings—has been anywhere near racist or racism. There is a legitimate difference of view, but we should not resort to those sorts of things being said.

I object also to what the Prime Minister did this morning, when he suggested that those of us who opposed the Rwanda Bill before us lacked compassion—that somehow there was anybody who was not opposed to the drownings or some of the appalling things that we see. Of course, we are all opposed to that—there is not a single individual in this Chamber, in the press or in the other place who does not abhor some of that which takes place. But that is the context in which we have been debating this issue.

We are quite right to turn to around and say that we should look at what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is saying, and what my noble friend Lord Browne is saying. But it is not just about Labour Peers. Again, the Prime Minister and other people have gone on saying, “Labour is blocking this—Labour Peers are blocking this”. We do not have a majority in here to block anything; we have to have the support of Cross-Benchers, Tory Peers abstaining or disappearing, as well as the Liberal Democrats voting with us and everybody else.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we recognise the resolution and strength of this House in how it has worked on the Bill. That is not to suggest for one moment that this House has changed its view; it is simply that we have had to recognise that the other House has the elected ability to override whatever we wish. However, the Bill’s outcomes are still to be discussed and debated.

The Minister, at least three times during the last three sessions here, said that the Government will not ratify the UK-Rwanda treaty until

“all necessary implementation is in place for both”

the UK and Rwanda

“to comply with the obligations under the treaty”.—[Official Report, 17/4/24; col. 1033.]

Given the position that this House has taken, it seems to us that it would be very valuable indeed, whenever the Government are prepared to sign the treaty, to have an opportunity to debate it in this House. Will the Minister acknowledge that, and give Parliament and this House an opportunity to discuss these matters when the opportunity comes up? We assume that will happen in the next 10 to 12 weeks, because that is the timetable that the Government have set themselves. Therefore, these matters will be very important to the House, which has grave concerns about the issues that have been debated here many times.

Recognising that we are at the end of this route of the legislation does not mean that we are at the end of the debate that we must have on the manner and objectives that the Government have set for themselves. To put those under more scrutiny, it would be most helpful indeed if the Minister could grant us time for that debate.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, these are the final stages of the passage of the Bill. It is not a Third Reading, but I again thank the Government Front Bench, including the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart—who is not here; I cannot see him anywhere—the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of the House and others, for the way they have conducted the proceedings of the Bill overall. It has been very much appreciated.

Although we fundamentally disagree on the Bill—the Government will now own the Bill and see how it works—I am somewhat reassured by the process that has been undertaken, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As a result of what we have said—and contrary to what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the Bill’s passage, which completely dominated our discussions for much of the time—the Government have amended the Bill. It would be extremely helpful to the Government Front Bench here, and others who may be listening, to recognise that the House of Lords has a role to play. It is perfectly appropriate for the Lords to delay legislation and to say that we think the Government should think again—and even think again twice. If it had not been for us demanding that the Government think again three or four times, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment would not have been passed. Given the importance that everybody in this House attributes to his amendment, I would have thought that was cause for reflection on how well this system works. When I was in the other place, I saw that it irritates the Government. They feel that their elected mandate is being overridden, but actually—except in very exceptional circumstances—that does not happen.

I am sorry to reiterate this point about process, but it is really important. I do not know how many times, but I have said numerous times from the Front Bench that we will not block the Bill, as have my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lady Smith, the leader of our party in this place. Yet we see consistently from the Prime Minister, including today, claims that Labour Peers in this place seek to block the Bill. I hope—I am not sure—that noble Lords opposite will come to this side of the House and that we will go to that side. If that happens, I hope that, when we put forward various pieces of legislation to do with trade union rights, for example, and all the other Bills that we have suggested, noble Lords will remember that the role of the House of Lords in those circumstances will be to challenge the Labour Government who I hope will come into place but not seek to block or undermine the elected will of the people. That is not what we have sought to do.

I hope the serious point that I am making about the way the political system operates in this country will be a cause for us to reflect that, in respect of this Bill, although we fundamentally disagree with it, that system has worked reasonably well, and I look forward to that happening again in the future.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, and I thank her enormously for her words of support for Amendment 10F. I also thank her for her continued support throughout the time that I have been pressing this amendment in my preparations and other aspects of what I have been doing in your Lordships’ House.

I will speak to Motion D1 and Amendment 10F in lieu. I began my remarks yesterday with a promise not to rehearse the moral case for the amendment. I add to that the promise not to rehearse the compelling long- term strategic security case for it to protect our future credibility as an ally, nor to rehearse in detail the irrationality of the Government’s two principal lines of argument in refusing to accept the principle of exempting a small number of ill-served brave Afghan fighters, who are already here in the UK, from deportation. Rather, as this is the fifth time that I have had to make a speech in your Lordships’ House in support of a variant of this amendment, I refer noble Lords to cols. 906-08 of the Official Report for yesterday—that is for those of you who are not already word-perfect on my speeches on this.

Since yesterday the halls of this Parliament and beyond have echoed to suggestions, and in some cases reassurances, that we who support this amendment could expect a statement of assurance from the Government about the fate of this small body of brave soldiers who fought with our forces in Afghanistan and are in this dilemma, facing compulsory deportation to Rwanda, only because of our Government’s sclerosis and administrative shortcomings and the possible venal dishonesty of some forces that they served with, which have resulted in the wrongful refusal of the ARAP status that they would have been awarded and which would have included visas for them, thus enabling them to escape certain death rather than compelling them to take irregular routes here in the first place. If those assurances had been bankable, our party and I would have engaged with them. A promise of such assurances was supported by credible evidence of high-level exchanges, but that was withdrawn this afternoon. I understand that that is because of a political policy decision at No. 10 that was reflected in a statement by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson. I would read it out to noble Lords but they can read it for themselves.

We are left with the best that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for whom I have great regard, can offer. I will read the assurance from yesterday that he repeated today in his short, interrupted speech:

“I turn to Motion F and Amendment 10D. As we have set out before, the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us, and we will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that they receive the attention that they deserve”.—[Official Report, 16/4/24; col. 901.]


That is what we have, but I do not have any faith in the Government’s attitude to the brave men and women concerned from that assurance. I do not understand what it means. I do not take any assurance from it, given not only the way that these individuals have been treated but the way that your Lordships’ House and my noble friends have been treated over the last 24 hours. I also do not take any reassurance from it because, as a parent, a practising lawyer and a politician, on occasions in my life when I have “ensured that people receive the attention that they deserve”, it has normally resulted in me scolding them, disciplining them or telling them they were wrong and they will have to be punished. It does not seem to give any assurance that there will be any positive result; it sounds more like a threat than anything else.

As I said yesterday, now is the time to give these people the sanctuary that their bravery has earned. This worthless assurance will not do. I therefore feel compelled to test the mood of your Lordships’ House and to send the message to the other place that it is time the Government learned the political consequences of the failure either to give an assurance that is bankable or to accept this amendment. There is little, if any, support in your Lordships’ House for the failure to do so, and there is certainly no majority support in the country for us to treat these brave people this way.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I do not intend to repeat the arguments that were made yesterday for the two amendments that I understand are going to be pushed to a vote. I shall simply say this about the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope: it provides Parliament and the Government with protection. Parliament, including this House, is provided with protection by the amendment in declaring that Rwanda is a safe country when we do not have the evidence of it being so. The amendment gives us security. Secondly, it provides protection for both present and future Secretaries of State, whose ability to act when Rwanda is perhaps declared as not being safe in the future is constrained by the Bill that we are being asked to pass without amendment. It is therefore essential for both Parliament and the Government to have the protection that this Motion provides.

In respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I was hoping to hear from the Government a concrete guarantee that Afghan supporters and allies, who provided such great service to the United Kingdom, would be given the right to live in our country. No such guarantee has been given. Vague words do not stand the test here, and it is essential that this House stands by the resolve it has shown by ensuring that this matter is referred back to the other House to really consider its obligations to those who have served this country.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the speeches that we have heard this evening. What a brilliant speech that was from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, setting out in clear and concise terms why your Lordships should vote for his Motion B1. To put it more simply, at the moment the Bill says that two and two is three and a half; the noble and learned Lord’s amendment makes two and two make four.

The Government should listen. The amendment would not delay or stop the Bill—it is not an obstacle to the Bill—but would simply make the Bill make sense. It uses the monitoring committee, set up by the treaty that the Government have put forward, to say to the Government in a very simple way, “Rwanda is now safe, because all the mechanisms outlined in the treaty have been put in place”. The Government have committed themselves to that, and if the amendment is accepted it will simply allow the monitoring committee to inform the Government of that fact.

More important, perhaps, is the second part of the amendment, whereby the monitoring committee could rescue the Government from what is in the Bill, if at some point in the future Rwanda became unsafe, by letting the Government know—or the Government themselves could act. Why on earth would the Government oppose that amendment? It is completely unbelievable that a sensible amendment like that has not been accepted.

I say to the Government—to those on the Front Bench both here and in the other place—that they should reflect properly on what the noble and learned Lord is saying. I hope that your Lordships will reflect on the words before us. We will certainly support his Motion B1.

The other brilliant speech was that of my noble friend Lord Browne on Motion D1. I have said this before, and I say it again, with a lot of regret. I do not blame the Minister or the others on the Front Bench, but it is inexcusable for the Government to say, 24 hours ago, to His Majesty’s Opposition and others that we could expect something to be done about this amendment —that we could almost accept that it would be accepted, changed and put into the Bill—only for us to find out, when we woke up this morning, that nothing like that had happened. I am not talking about the Front Bench in this place, but that is a terrible way for the Government to behave. It is inexcusable for us to be told what we have been told.

The Minister has carried on with the Bill for months now. He has included us, talked to us and treated us with respect. But somewhere along the line, those on the Front Bench here have been told what to do by somebody. We would like to know who. Who has turned around and said that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is unacceptable? Who in this House believes that we do not have a moral duty to those who stood by our Armed Forces, fought with our Armed Forces and in some cases died with our Armed Forces, and did all they could to ensure that the values of this country and the coalition that operated in Afghanistan were as successful as they could be? Who on earth in His Majesty’s Government has decided that those people do not deserve the protection of my noble friend’s amendment?

This is an astonishing situation. It is wrong. It is morally bankrupt. The Government have failed in their duty to protect those they promised to protect. That cannot be right. I say to noble Lords opposite, particularly when they are asked to vote on my noble friend’s amendment, that this is not only to do with whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal or Cross-Benchers, or of no persuasion at all. It is a matter of standing up for the moral certainty of what His Majesty’s Government, of whatever colour, stand for—that when they give their word to other countries, and to those defending the freedoms, the democracy and the values that we care for, those people can trust that word. The Government of today are breaking their word to those veterans, and that is what my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment seeks to address.