Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendments 1, 3 and 5 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to which I have added my name. I do not believe that we can enshrine in law a statement of fact without seeing and understanding the evidence that shows such a statement to be true, in particular when such a statement of fact is so contentious and for which the evidence may change. Ignoring for a second the strange absurdity of such declarations, we must also consider the real impact that this could have on the potentially vulnerable people whom the Government intend to send to Rwanda. As my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is in his place, said at Second Reading,

“in almost every tradition of global faith and humanism around the world, the dignity of the individual is at the heart of what is believed”.—[Official Report, 29/1/24, col. 1014.]

Sending those who seek refuge in the UK to a country of questionable safety does not respect this dignity, so I support amendments that require further evidence of the safety of Rwanda before anyone is sent there.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, we support all the amendments in this group. It is absolutely critical that domestic and international law is complied with. This should not be up for debate. It is who we are. It is what we stand for. If we seek to deviate from our domestic and international legal obligations, our role on the world stage and our ability to have influence globally is significantly diminished. We cannot shy away from the consequential impact this will have on other countries choosing to follow suit. As the United Nations Human Rights Council put it last Friday,

“international standards on the independence of the judiciary are closely linked to the rule of law and the separation of powers. ‘Provisions of the Rwanda Bill could undermine the principles of the separation of powers and the rule of law in the United Kingdom’”.

That is sufficient for us to support all these amendments.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Hailsham about the late Lord Cormack. I cannot add anything to what my noble friend said, but it is entirely true that Lord Cormack is a great loss and we shall all miss him tremendously.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend for their references to my earlier intervention in these debates. I am not sure that the further interpretation that they place on my intervention is entirely justified or that I would entirely go along with it, but that is perhaps a matter for debate at a later stage.

The amendments in this group are all based on respect for the rule of law. A critical part of respect for the rule of law is the separation of powers, something much referred to in our earlier debates, and it is to that subject that I propose to address these remarks. As Anthony Speaight KC reminds us in his recent Politeia pamphlet, there is no such thing as the absolute separation of legislature, executive and judicial powers in our constitutional arrangements. Our Executive are rooted in our legislature and in any event, as Mr Speaight and others have pointed out, there are precedents for this legislation—for the proposition that Parliament can deem certain countries to be safe—including the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, passed under the Blair Government. The principle in that legislation was challenged in the case of Nasseri but was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. That, of course, is essentially what this Bill does: it deems Rwanda to be a safe country.

However, there is an even broader principle that is relevant here and is at the root of why this legislation is necessary. We have traditionally recognised the separation of powers between the Executive and the judiciary. That principle can be expressed in the proposition that decision-making is the responsibility of the Executive, but that the courts have the responsibility to review the lawfulness of those decisions.

That responsibility of the courts is what we know as judicial review. Its scope has been expanded greatly in recent years in ways which have not found universal approval but its principle is accepted as an important part of our constitutional arrangements. However, judicial review does not involve the courts substituting their own decisions for those of the Executive. It involves, in essence, an assessment of whether it was reasonable for the Executive to make the decision in question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that I have come to the same conclusion about these amendments, but perhaps from a different perspective. As noble Lords know, these Benches voted against the Bill in principle, but that does not mean to say, having not won that argument, that we will not support changes to the Bill in ways that mitigate the problems that we still see with it.

It is worth reminding the House of the decision that we took on the treaty—that we would not recommend the treaty being signed until certain conditions were in place. As noble Lords know, from the Standing Orders of this House, that that was a resolution of this House and is the view of this House. These amendments are simply seeking to amplify and recognise the decision of this House that is in place at present. If it is not in place, we are going to be asked to do that fictionalising thing, which is to change our minds from what we said before—that we need to see those conditions in place before we can see Rwanda as safe—simply because the Bill is before us.

This group of amendments recognises that we need to have those conditions in place before the consideration that this House has already given can be reversed. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that “safe” in respect of a country is not about the beauty of the country or the nature of its people; it is about the structures and the systems that it has in place to meet its obligations, including the obligations for refugees that we have laid out.

Given that the courts have given a decision of fact on the safety of Rwanda, it is deeply problematic that the Government want this Parliament to overturn its own decision and declare the opposite. We think that they would be better off going back to the courts to review the evidence and coming to a finding of fact, if they believe that the situation has changed. As the United Nations council responsible for public affairs said in its announcement last Friday, this Bill will

“unduly limit judicial independence by requiring judges to treat Rwanda as a safe third country now and in the future, regardless of any evidence to the contrary before them”.

It is clear that the terms of the treaty have not been met; that is what this House says, and that is the resolution of this House. They need to be met before the requirements of the treaty are satisfied. The mechanism by which the Government are asking Parliament to declare Rwanda safe is the treaty. The Minister confirmed in Committee that the safeguards outlined in the resolution of this House were not yet in place but were being worked towards. In Hansard for day one in Committee, 12 February, my noble friend Lord Purvis asked whether we could pursue the issue that the Minister had mentioned. He said:

“If the Rwandan Government are ‘working towards’ putting safeguards in place, that means they are not currently in place. Is that correct?”—[Official Report, 12/2/24; cols. 64-65.]


Hansard says that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, replied, “It must do”.

This afternoon, letters have been delivered to Members who took part in these debates. I apologise for having to look on my phone, because these letters which relate to Committee of this House on the Bill were delivered by electronic mechanisms only after we had started discussing Report. That is not the way this House should be treated. If we want the evidence on which we can make decisions, we should have it in time to be able to make further progress. Anyway, I have to turn my phone sideways because it is very small writing, but I will do my very best. It says in a paragraph about whether these matters are in sight:

“The UK and Rwandan Governments will continue to work closely together to implement all the measures under the treaty and prepare to operationalise the partnership”.


So quite clearly, the facts required by this House are not there at present. I like to cite the analogy from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. It is like saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, we are going by plane and we are working towards making the plane safe”. If you think about it, that is where we are at the moment. Would you get into that plane? Probably not. You would be foolish to do so—but, if you did get into it, you would have no guarantee that it would be capable of flying and not dropping out of the air.

So these amendments are clear that we must put the conditions in place. They have already been agreed by this House. We have made it clear that the conditions we as a House place on the treaty are to be adhered to, and that the conditions and procedures must be adopted to satisfy the House both before and after deportations can take place. They are sensible. They are what the House requires in order to fulfil the requirements of the decision we took on the matters of the treaty. I support.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I do urge noble Lords to use some common sense. It is inconceivable, if this Bill is enacted, for the first few months—regardless of whether all the conditions of the treaty have been implemented—that Rwanda, under the full spotlight and glare of international publicity and the attention of the press, will not implement carefully and considerately or that it will refoule anyone that we send it.

The reason for having all the things in the treaty is for the period after the initial spotlight has been turned off and attention has waned. Then, it is important to have all those considerations in place; it is not initially. No one could really imagine that we will send someone out and within a few weeks they will be sent by Rwanda to some unsafe country. It will not happen. We know it will not.

But it is very important that we get this happening soon, and that we not only use common sense but are merciful, because the longer we delay, the more people will come across the Channel and the more people will die.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I wanted to make a couple of brief points in support of Amendments 20 and 21. In Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, quoted at length the Lord Chancellor’s submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to justify breaching the universality of human rights. Clearly, the Lord Chancellor did not convince the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in its majority report concluded that the provision

“threatens the fundamental principle that human rights are universal and should be protected for everyone”.

I still do not understand, given the concerns expressed by the JCHR, as well as the EHRC, the Law Society and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, why this Government continue to try to argue that disapplication does not affect the principle of universality, which the noble and learned Lord waxed lyrical about in his speech.

Secondly, the noble and learned Lord promised to write to me in response to my concerns about the implications for the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement—following on from the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey—and the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ request for a full explanation before Report as to why the Government consider Clause 3 to be consistent with these agreements. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter but, to echo what the noble Lord, Lord German, said earlier, I gently point out that it was sent at 3.24 pm this afternoon, after Report began. That really is not good practice, and it does not meet the JCHR’s request that a full explanation should be published before Report. It seems that the actual full publication will not be until some time on Wednesday, when we will be finishing Report.

I am not convinced that the answers to my questions would satisfy the JCHR, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission or the Human Rights Consortium of Northern Ireland. I am also not clear why the letter was not copied to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, given that she originally challenged the Minister on this point at Second Reading. I am not going to pursue the matter here, except to point out that I do not think we yet have a satisfactory explanation of the interactions with and the implications for these agreements.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Is the logic of the noble Lord’s point therefore that the Government would be better to repeal the Human Rights Act completely and revert to the pre-1998 situation?

[Lord German (LD)]

No, we simply keep the Human Rights Act, which does the job we are seeking here. Naturally, of course, if the Government want to move and create a special group, as here—what they call “illegal migrants”—what about the other groups that might follow from it? It is very clear that there may well be an issue with protesters—groups that are not in vogue with the Government. It is a very dangerous precedent and this is a warning sign. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is a chasing of short-term headlines that will have a significant consequence for people’s rights in this country.

Not content with arguments that they are having with the views of the ECHR and the UNHCR, the Government in the last seven days have now drawn swords with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Published last Friday, the council’s report said:

“Prohibiting courts and tribunals in the UK from applying and interpreting principles of domestic human rights law and international law would undermine the ability of the courts to protect all those under UK jurisdiction from violations of their human rights as provided under international law”.


It goes on to say that the Government should look at this matter again and the United Nations has offered to work with the UK Government on this matter. So, when he responds, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have read the United Nations Human Rights Council’s review and whether they are prepared to meet the council and discuss this matter further?

There is also a logical inconsistency in what the Government are doing; they cannot have it both ways. They want to rely on the international convention and jurisprudence in justifying the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, but they are then seeking to disapply the findings of that same court in relation to the same international convention with respect to the consideration of interim orders. You cannot have it both ways and the Government need to be clear on that matter.

All the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made about Amendment 17 are absolutely accurate, but one thing worries me completely and that is the part of the amendment that basically takes away every law that this country might apply in this direction—domestic law and common law. For goodness’ sake, with common law as interpreted by the courts, I do not know how you find which parts of it you want to disapply. You have to be specific in what you say if you want to disapply anything of this nature. Amendment 17 looks to me like a complete wiping out, blanking out and blindfolding of every single possible piece of legislation that might stand in the way of this Government’s view, and that absolutely must affect the balance of the rule of law in this country.

I look forward to seeing how the Government will deal with that amendment, but I suggest they might need to consider how they move forward with no further disapplication of the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak quite briefly. The amendments in this group again demonstrate the threat to the domestic rule of law posed by this Bill. This is not the first Bill that threatens the Human Rights Act in this way, but the fact that it now seems almost commonplace for the Government to strip back human rights legislation does not mean it should go without objection each and every time.

There is much to object to in this Bill and Clause 4 is no exception. Each cut to the Human Rights Act matters and each piece of domestic law cut away in search of a quick political gain matters as well. I hope the Government listen to the arguments put forward by my noble friends and see sense.

I have to say I found this relatively brief debate quite refreshing. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, was perfectly candid with the House, and for a layman it was much easier to understand the political differences between the view articulated by the noble Lord and the view on the other side of the House. It was much easier to understand that difference than when I try to decipher the words of the Ministers when they respond to these amendments. Nevertheless, I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, this group, similar to the third group, demonstrates the risk to individuals where their safety, due to their individual circumstances, cannot be properly considered under the Bill before they are sent to Rwanda. We have had a focus on LGBT, on modern slavery and on Afghans and other people who have served this country.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the issue of modern slavery. Undoubtedly, this is an area where there is a lacuna in the Bill, because these people are victims. My noble friend asked the Government to do a complete analysis of the way in which they deal with this group of people in order to understand what sort of facilities they are going to need and, more importantly, to make the assessment here, and to understand that these people are victims who are suffering; their case should be heard so that we can judge that victim base.

On the other hand, we have talked about the Armed Forces, families and the carve-out for Afghans. It is not correct to assume that those at risk due to their association with UK forces have all been brought to the UK through safe routes. It is clear from the contributions that we have just heard that many of them remain. They have no alternative but to go into hiding or, if they see their life threatened, to take dangerous routes to reach safety in the UK, the country that they believed would protect them for all that they had put their lives at risk for.

I have two points to make to supplement that. The evidence from the UNHCR to the Supreme Court detailed that citizens from Afghanistan had a 0% success rate for claims processed in Rwanda between 2020 and 2022. During that same period, 74% of Afghans who came to the UK had had their claims processed successfully in that time period. I ask the Government: to what extent will the risk to Afghans, due to their association with allied forces in Afghanistan, be both understood and considered in Rwanda?

This question raises the issue of discharging our responsibility towards these people who were placed at risk because of their association with the UK but were then not given protection by the UK and were instead sent elsewhere for another country to deal with—a country that has a 0% success rate in giving people asylum in that country. These are people who put their lives and those of their families at risk in support of the UK’s enterprise and our forces in that country.

This group of amendments needs to be examined further. It needs a much more sympathetic approach from the Government because we are talking about victims and people who have given service to this country. Those people need to have special treatment, rather than us simply looking at the legislation and passing them through. I ask noble Lords to imagine if someone from Afghanistan who got to this country, who would have qualified if they had had the chance but their qualification was misrepresented for whatever reason, was then sent to a country where there was a 0% chance of their being recognised as a refugee.

This group of amendments has demonstrated that there is a risk that the Government have to pay attention to, in trying to make sure that they fulfil the requirements that I think are both humane and important.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, as we come to the end of today’s consideration of the Bill before us, I start with the important point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned. I raised it in debate on the first group of amendments, when I said that the constitutional position is that the Government have the right to get their Bill through, but the House of Lords also has a constitutional position, which is the right for it to expect that its views and the amendments that it passes are considered properly by the Government. Unless I got it wrong, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was saying—it is certainly what I think—that our belief is that the Government are simply saying, “We’re not going to change the Bill at all. We don’t mind what the amendments are or what inconsistencies are brought forward, or how illogical what we are saying is. Such is our determination that we are going to drive this through and use our electoral majority to do it”. To that extent, the Government are undermining the constitutional conventions on which our Parliament is based.

I have been lectured, as many of us on this side of and across the House have been, on the Government’s right to get their Bill through. Indeed, the Home Secretary was at it again this morning in a newspaper, warning of the consequences of us not allowing the Bill through. Why would the Government simply ignore what the House of Lords is saying, which appears to be the intention? It may not be the intention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, or the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but it will be interesting to see what amendments, if any, the Government make in response to what has happened in your Lordships’ House in Committee and, more importantly, in the votes that have taken place today.

I would appreciate us having some understanding of the Government’s view of what is being done here. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned, and as I am sure many other noble Lords feel, we have a right to be heard—and, at times, for our amendments to be acted upon—rather than simply ignored and dismissed as people who do not understand the problem and are simply trying to get in the way of dealing with the boats.

I started with that important point, notwithstanding the fact that some really important points reflecting on the Bill have been made on this group of amendments, as with many other groups. This group of amendments deals with individual claims and exemptions that may be made with respect to the general principle of the law. As somebody who has great respect for the law, although not a lawyer myself, it has always been my understanding that not many good laws do not have exemptions within them. A good law may have a generality of application to the population—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, will know this better than me, in his current position—but it will have exemptions within it because the impact of a general law on an individual may be such that justice is not served. Because of that, law therefore has to have exemptions built into it. As it stands, the Government are simply not able to have any exemptions within this. There is a blanket application of the law to particular individuals, whatever their circumstances.

We heard three very passionate and moving speakers leading on these amendments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, supported by my noble friend Lord Cashman, outlined the circumstances that may occur with a particular social group. My noble friend mentioned the LGBT community, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, will also appreciate that. Does that need to be considered within the Bill? We will have to see, but it appears to be another thing that the Government will just dismiss.

We heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her amendments with respect to victims of modern slavery and trafficking. People who are trafficked have no choice. They do not say “Yes, traffic me”. That is different; that is smuggling. We are talking about people who are trafficked and have no part in the decision. The Government’s Bill just does not care about that. Those people will be subject to automatic deportation or going to Rwanda. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, quite rightly, surely that could be considered for exemption under the terms of the Bill.

My noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, supported by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others, pointed out that a consequence of the Bill as it stands will be that people who served this country and put their lives on the line for us will simply be treated as illegal and deported to Rwanda. Does the Minister think that is right? Does he actually agree with that? It would be interesting to know whether he thinks that somebody, as my noble friend Lord Browne pointed out, who has fought for this country, served this country and put their life on the line, and who has had to come because of the situation in Afghanistan that my noble friend outlined, should be deported. Who in this House thinks that they should be deported to Rwanda? I do not believe the Government Front Bench think that. It is a rhetorical question; I will save the Minister from answering it. If they do not think that, then they should sort it out.

We are not playing at this; these are things that affect real people’s lives. The point the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made, is really important. What credibility will this country have if it finds itself in a similar situation in the future and says, “Work with us because we will ensure that you are protected”? What possible credibility would we have as a country or as part of an alliance? If we said to people, “If you serve with this country, do not worry about the consequences of it, because you will be protected”, what will we be able to say to them when, as the noble and gallant Lord pointed out, they simply turn around and say, “That is not what happened with those who served in Afghanistan”? Many of them were forced to stay and the consequences of that for some of them have been very severe.

The Government need to act on my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment. We do not need warm words such as, “Yes, we need to consider this and think about it. It is a very important, interesting point that has been made”. The Government make the law. With respect to this, they should change the Bill to make sure that those people are protected and they should change the Bill in the way the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has outlined, with respect to victims of modern slavery and trafficking. As my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said, the Bill needs changing with respect to LGBT people—although I note my noble friend’s Amendment 33, which we will consider on Wednesday, may be a way of doing that. We will leave that for Wednesday.

This is a very important group of amendments dealing with individual claims and exemptions. This is not only about the law; it is about the way that justice works in this country. Justice demands these changes and I hope the Government respond.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord German]

Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to give the bill a second reading because it

(1) places the United Kingdom at risk of breaching its international law commitments;

(2) undermines the rule of law by ousting the jurisdiction of the courts;

(3) will lead to substantial costs to the taxpayer;

(4) fails to provide safe and legal routes for refugees; and

(5) fails to include measures to tackle people smuggling gangs.”

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I direct the House’s attention to my interests as laid out in the register.

The treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, which this Bill is seeking to affect, is completely contrary to how we should act as a country with a reputation for protecting individuals’ rights and freedoms, where the rule of law is upheld. I do not need to repeat the key points of last week’s debate on the Rwanda treaty, but the decision of this House is significant in respect of the Bill. This House resolved that it could not ratify the treaty that the Government are using to declare that Rwanda is safe. The House determined that the safeguards and protections outlined in the treaty must be fully implemented. Moreover, the House agreed that future assurances of changes in the processing of asylum seekers in Rwanda were not sufficient: the changes needed to be fully operational and effective.

Significantly, the treaty is the instrument by which the Government declare that they can state in this Bill that Rwanda is safe. Clause 1(2)(b) is clear:

“this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country”.

However, this House of Parliament has not determined that this is the case. The treaty is the platform on which the Bill sits. If this platform is not in place, the Bill sinks. The legs have come off the table, or, to put it another way, the Bill’s foundations have been removed. It was the settled will of this House last week that the treaty cannot yet be ratified. How, therefore, can this House consent to a Bill that relies on that treaty having the approval of this House?

This is critical, because the decision of the Supreme Court was based on its analysis of the facts. The contrary case put forward by the Government in the Bill has not been supported by this House. The Bill before us requires Parliament—which of course includes this House—to agree that, in our judgment, as a House, Rwanda is safe. This House, in this respect, needs to be consistent with itself, and with the decision it took last week.

The Bill places the UK at risk of breaching our commitments under international law. We as a country have signed up to comply with the obligations of international treaties and conventions. Having done that, we need to demonstrate that, as a country, we can be relied upon to uphold international treaties, and that we promote a rules-based international order—because if we do not then we cannot expect others to comply, and are in no position to call out other countries when they fail to comply with international law.

The West is often accused of double standards, and under this legislation this accusation will only increase. Our global leadership and our ability to have a serious voice on the world stage will be severely damaged. We will no longer be a country whose voice is respected and listened to. We simply cannot rely on our historical traditions when our current actions are going in the opposite direction. Global responsibility-sharing is the foundation of the 1951 refugee convention; it relies on us all doing our part. The Government say that this plan is a “partnership” and “burden-sharing”, but, frankly, it is offloading—offloading the most vulnerable people on our planet and offloading our responsibilities under international agreements we are signed up to.

If the Bill is enacted, we will be legislating contrary to our international legal obligations. Our domestic law would be out of step with these obligations. Some might say that is acceptable but I do not believe that is the case; I think this House will stand up for the object and the purpose of these international instruments to which we are signed up. Our courts would have their hands tied by this legislation. There is a strong possibility, particularly without pre-existing safeguards being proved operational and effective in Rwanda, that this would lead to refoulement and breaches of Article 2 and Article 3 rights. That is why it is critical for the steps set out in the treaty to be seen to be working before the Bill can have any effect.

The Bill introduces the option for Ministers to refuse to comply with a Rule 39 injunction from the European Court of Human Rights. Ignoring an injunction would be a clear breach of international law, as the president of the court declared last week, and this view is strengthened by the Rule 39 reforms which the court itself has introduced.

Domestically, the Bill undermines the rule of law and, further, ousts the jurisdiction of our courts. The rule of law is a central tenet of our society, expressed by AV Dicey, well-known to all lawyers, who wrote,

“we speak of the ‘rule of law’ as a characteristic of our country, not only that with us no man is above the law, but that here, every man, whatever be his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals”.

My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will elaborate on this in his contribution.

The Bill seeks to exclude a group of people from accessing the legal protections we grant to everyone else in our society. It is critical in a democratic society that the law is applied equally and that human rights apply to everyone, not just some in our society. The Government’s Bill prevents the right to access redress, which is afforded to the rest of us.

Further, the Bill is an abuse of Parliament’s role in reversing the Supreme Court’s factual assessment of risk of harm in Rwanda. If the Government believe they have new evidence to show that Rwanda is safe, surely the correct procedure to follow is to let the courts decide it and consider the evidence and come to a judgment. That is the proper way to go. If Rwanda was indeed safe, there would be no need to have the option to ignore interim injunctions from the ECHR or disapply elements of the Human Rights Act. This Bill represents an overreach of Parliament, and it is critical that we retain the balance in our democracy achieved by the separation of powers.

Despite all this, the Bill will not actually achieve its stated aim, and it certainly does not represent good value to the taxpayer—£368 million at the last count, added to which at least £169,000 for each person removed to Rwanda. These are staggering, eyewatering costs, which could pay for 100 million free school meals or nearly 6 million more GP appointments.

Far from being a deterrent, the Bill will promote smuggling—a point which my noble friend Lady Northover will develop in her remarks. It does not address real solutions to prevent people using criminal gangs to take dangerous journeys to the UK. The focus on deterrence is misplaced. Two-thirds of all those who have crossed the channel since the Illegal Migration Act was passed came from six high-grant countries. The push factor for these people is far stronger than any deterrent the UK may dream up. We need safe alternatives to dangerous journeys, and this must be part of the strategy to reduce dangerous crossings. Swift, efficient, accurate and just determination of asylum claims and humane removal of those who do not qualify will be a deterrent in itself to people without a protection claim.

We also need constructive engagement with European neighbours on co-operation on asylum. Addressing the root causes of displacement and onward movement is critical, and a strong international aid and development budget is key to that. Instead, we are presented with a political totem of the Tory right—a device to satisfy its internal party politics and a Bill from which there is no going back. If Rwanda is found to be unsafe then this Bill will act as a block to putting matters right. This legislation was not in the Government’s manifesto; the Addison/Salisbury convention does not apply. I maintain that this is one of the rare occasions—which have been used by both Conservative and Labour parties in this House, and which was foreseen by a report of the Constitution Committee—when this House should vote against a Bill at Second Reading. It is within our powers as described in the Companion.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for giving way. Does he agree that the function of this House, the second Chamber, is as a revising Chamber? It is not a vetoing Chamber; it is a revising Chamber. Can he explain to me the Liberal Democrat’s novel constitutional thinking that, by throwing out this Bill on Second Reading, we should prevent the revising Chamber revising?

[Lord German (LD)]

The noble Lord is wrong. I think in 2011 he voted against the Health and Social Care Bill at Second Reading, as had happened before, in earlier versions, by Members of the Conservative Party. If our laws and the rules of this House say we can do it then we can do it, and it has been done by both sides here.

I maintain that this Chamber should listen to the real power in what people will be saying this afternoon about the nature of this Bill. It asks us to believe that black is white—that facts are not facts. It breaches conventions and treaties to which we are signed up. It damages our credibility on the world stage and the agreements that we have with other countries. It seeks to damage our relationships with things that we have already signed up to, including the European convention on trafficking, the CTA with the European Union, the United Nations, the ECHR and many more. It damages the separation of powers in this country, which is a fundamental tenet of our democracy. It offends against the rule of law. Fundamentally, it treats some of the most vulnerable people in the world—people who are facing persecution and torture and fleeing for their lives—as undesirables. For us on these Benches, that is unconscionable. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I have just read a report of the debate from a senior broadcast journalist. He says that the majority of Peers in this House regard this Bill as an “unholy abomination”. Therefore, in order to sort this matter out, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.

Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations are a regrettable consequence of our failure to prevent—it is extremely difficult to prevent—deter or remove illegal immigrants from this country. I hope that the Rwanda Bill, which we will consider shortly, will belatedly change that situation.

The reason why I have chosen to intervene briefly in this debate is to seek information. When I was the Secretary of State for DSS, I was told that it was impossible to work legally in this country without a national insurance number—a NINo. You cannot get a national insurance number unless you can demonstrate the legal right to work. It then emerged that there were far more national insurance numbers than people of working age in this country. Various explanations were put forward—they were numbers of people who had emigrated and the numbers were not rescinded, and so on.

First, I want to know whether that issue has been cleared up. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that it is necessary to have a national insurance number to be employed? The employer has to ask for it and obtain it; it will then go into the system and, if the number is invalid, it will be thrown out. Secondly, is it possible in any way to obtain a national insurance number if you do not have the legal right to work? Are those two aspects effective in preventing illegal immigrants obtaining legal employment or accessing benefits? I appreciate that they will not stop people employing people illegally and failing to report that to the authorities, the tax authorities and so on.

I appreciate that my noble friend may not have the answers to those questions here and now but it would be helpful if we could clear this up and put on the record the precise effectiveness of national insurance numbers in dealing with these issues.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the purpose of these two orders is to create a more hostile environment for those who seek to enter this country by routes other than the ones that are available to them, which are very limited indeed. I have a range of questions but my principal concern regards the perverse impact of these orders and how they will act as a deterrent to people who are legally entitled to stay in this country, have been given the right to remain and are seeking to establish themselves with a new life here.

My comment is based on the evidence provided to us. There is limited evidence that the current regime is not working. Of course, I understand that one might wish to increase the fees in line with inflation each year, which has not happened for 10 years, but one necessarily has to ask oneself this: if it is working, why does it need this extra change to make it happen? I will come back later to the evidence that the Government have provided. Without that strong evidence, there is an indication to me that this is an income stream for the Government. I am not necessarily going to complain about that but it certainly does not seem absolutely critical to the ambitions laid before it.

I want to look at the perverse impact on those who have been given the right to remain: those who are starting out on a new life here in the United Kingdom and are faced with the difficult, dual challenges of finding both a home and work. In the rented sector in particular, we currently have a housing crisis, with the private rental sector incredibly competitive for renters. Tenant demand for rental property was up by 54% in July last year. In that context, will landlords choose a tenant who may need to go through the right-to-rent checking process and risk a fine? Or will they opt for someone who has the right to rent, such as someone who has a passport versus someone who does not—or, more worryingly, someone who is of a different ethnic background?

This is a similar problem for jobseekers, who require an employer to check their right to work. We have to be live to the fact that certain profiles of people are at risk of discrimination as a result and will find it harder to find accommodation and employment than their white British counterparts. Protections and remedies need to be real and effective, and we need to consider whether this indirect impact is proportionate to achieving the stated aim of the policy: to deter irregular migrants.

The stated aim of the increase in these penalties is an effort to deter irregular migrants from entering the United Kingdom in the first place, as well as to encourage those without legal status to leave the United Kingdom. This policy has now been in force for 10 years, since 2014. Therefore, we should by now have some evidence of whether the policy works—that is, whether it has contributed to a reduction in people remaining in the United Kingdom after their leave has expired or to fewer people entering the United Kingdom without leave in order to work. My first question to the Minister is this: what is the evidence that this policy has had the desired impact on deterrence since it was introduced in 2014?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

I repeat the question I ended with: what is the evidence that this policy has had the desired impact on deterrence since it was introduced in 2014? Last week, I spent some time with a third-sector body that provides support for those with the right to remain in the United Kingdom. I heard direct evidence that, in the competition for rented accommodation, landlords are opting to choose a tenant where there is no need to go through the right to rent checking process and risk a fine. They are opting for someone who can provide the simplest proof of their right to rent. Increasing penalties by so much increases this risk of outlying those who are from a different category of people. It is particularly hurtful because it impacts very much on the bottom end of the rented market sector.

Paragraphs 22, 24 and 43 of the economic note are very instructive to understanding the strength of the evidence. Paragraph 22 says that there is “uncertainty”, paragraph 24 talks about “limited certainty”, and paragraph 43 says that “limited evidence” is available. Is that evidence available?

Secondly, what enforcement action is there against employers and landlords who discriminate against potential employees or potential renters on the basis of nationality or any other protected characteristic? How often has that enforcement been used? In the current housing crisis, where there are many renters for each rental property, to what extent is this policy increasing the barriers for the non-white British population legally in the United Kingdom to access housing?

The Home Office’s equality impact assessment associated with the instruments says:

“Any indirect impact is the result of an employer or landlord choosing to discriminate for which a remedy is likely to be available to the individual under the Equality Act 2010”.


Recently, I saw a sign in a rental agency in east London that said simply “no DWP”. Those of us with long memories will remember signs that said, “No Irish, no blacks”. Given the difficulty of providing proof, what data is there, if any, on the number of people who have used the Equality Act remedy? How will the Home Office keep the impact of this policy on race under review, as it states it will do in its equality impact assessment?

Finally, paragraph 25 of the economic note talks about familiarisation and says, basically, “We don’t need to do anything to inform employers or landlords about this because it’s just a small change and they already know about it”. But given the size of this particular increase in fines, it means there is a case, because we do not have the evidence, for ensuring that those who rent or offer jobs understand the importance of non-discrimination in this whole process.

Creating a hostile environment for those who have been granted leave to remain and who want to contribute to our economy is not an outcome that I would support. I hope the Minister would agree.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, on the draft immigration order for employment of adults subject to immigration control, the Labour Party supports the principle of preventing those with no legal right to reside in the UK undertaking paid employment here and implementing penalties that act as real deterrents for employers who deliberately break the law, so we will support the increasing of the penalties from £15,000 to £45,000 per worker for a first offence. However, given the potential impact on employers, the lack of consultation with businesses, especially small businesses, is disappointing. We would argue that it demonstrates, yet again, the lack of a clear, thought-out strategy towards immigration and tackling illegal work.

The draft order on residential accommodation would increase from £3,000 to £20,000 the maximum penalty for renting a property to someone who does not have the right to rent in the UK. Again, there has been a lack of consultation. I repeat the point made by the noble Lord, Lord German: there are known unintended consequences of right-to-rent checks and penalties for breaches. Landlords are keen to avoid large penalties and might discriminate against British nationals and lawful migrants who have the right to rent but who, perhaps because of their race or nationality, face discrimination and difficulty in getting those rentals. The noble Lord asked how this is monitored: is it done through the Equality Act, which is the remedy for landlords who are discriminating against legal people trying to rent? What are the Government doing to monitor this situation and what levels of enforcement are there against landlords who illegally discriminate against particular groups of people?

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord German]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the findings of the Brook House Inquiry, published on 19 September 2023, in particular its recommendation for a 28-day time limit on immigration detention.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so I draw attention to my interests as laid out in the register.

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

My Lords, the Government are carefully considering the findings of the Brook House inquiry, set out in its detailed report, in relation to the management of the immigration detention estate and the welfare of detained individuals. There are no plans to introduce a time limit on immigration detention.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the inquiry exposed the dehumanising abuse of vulnerable people held in immigration detention. Unfortunately, the report’s author states that these issues remain in place today. We understand that a senior civil servant has been tasked to prepare the Government’s response, to be published “in due course”. I wonder whether “in due course” will have ended nine months from now. Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Secondly, the report’s recommendation on a time limit was meant to be alongside the Home Office guidance on imminent times of removal. Will the Home Office seriously consider that recommendation, putting it alongside the current guidance, so that people are not detained for periods for which they are not intended?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s view is that a time limit on immigration detention would significantly impair our ability to remove those who have breached our immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. It is likely to encourage and reward abuse, allowing those who wish to guarantee their release to frustrate the removal process until the time limit is reached. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push a person over the time limit, regardless of the circumstances of their case. That would undermine our ability to maintain effective immigration control and would potentially place the public at higher risk, in particular through the release of foreign national offenders into the community.

Refugees: Notice Period for Home Office Accommodation

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will go through a little bit of what local authorities receive from the department. We work closely with DLUHC and regularly engage with the local authorities to ensure that they are supported. We of course recognise that the number of individuals in the system and the clearance of the asylum backlog is adding pressure to local authorities and their housing allocation capacity because of individuals presenting as homeless. I would also say to the noble Lord that all of the people being cleared in relation to the backlog have been in this country for a long time already.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the problem that the Minister has just alluded to is that local authorities are under enormous pressure when people arrive on their doorstep with a short period of time in which to find themselves appropriate housing. Given that the number of people reporting after the decision-making is now larger than it was, what extra assistance are the Government giving to local authorities, and to the voluntary sector, which is doing so much to help where it can?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there are a number of things that we are doing. We have local authority liaison officers who provide a specific point of contact for local authorities, particularly for urgent discontinuation-related inquiries. There are significant improvements in train to ensure that local authorities receive early notification of those who are being granted and leaving Home Office accommodation and supporting those customers through the move-on process following a positive decision. Following notification of a service decision, accommodation providers will notify local authorities within two days. We also share relevant data in the form of heat maps and various other macro data, if you will, to ensure effective planning.

Refugees: Homelessness

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I would take slight issue with the right reverend Prelate on whether the notice period is inadequate. I think that 28 days is more than enough, and there is huge pressure on our asylum system. As the House will be aware given that we talked about it the other day, the asylum and immigration system is costing this country £4 billion a year. However, ministerial agreement has been given to pause evictions for up to three days when a local authority has activated its severe weather emergency protocol due to poor weather conditions. This reduces the risks to life and enables the individual and/or local authority to find alternative accommodation arrangements.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the biometric residence permit gives successful asylum claimants access to public services, including, crucially, access to cash and funding for housing. What progress has the department made in bringing the notice to vacate closer to the time when it provides the permit? Bringing those closer together would give people the full time available to them to find appropriate housing because they would have the cash available. Without it, they cannot find the cash. I know the Government intended to make progress on this; what progress has been made in bringing those two dates together?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The move-on period is linked to when a biometric residence permit is issued and received because, as he points out, individuals generally require that BRP to access mainstream support—benefits, local authority housing, right to rent, bank accounts and so on. They are linked.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, here we are—emergency legislation in three weeks, emergency press conferences and an emergency reshuffle. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, if he is happy to be taking this legislation through your Lordships’ House. A Home Secretary has gone, saying the Bill does not go far enough; the noble Lord’s colleague—until 24 hours ago—resigned, saying it is doomed, describing it as

“a triumph of hope over experience”;

and the noble Lord, Lord Murray, is deafening with his silence. How on earth have we reached the situation where three Home Secretaries have gone to Rwanda but not a single asylum seeker? Which side of the open warfare in our governing party is the noble Lord on? Is it “too soft”, “too draconian”, “it won’t work” or even “who knows”, because I do not know and I do not think anyone else does? The way we are going, the former Home Secretary may be right that the Government are heading into an even more catastrophic situation.

This is the third Bill on channel crossings in two years. Why will this one work? How much have we spent so far on all of this, and how much is the budget? The Government refuse to say. It is apparently supposed to be published in an annual statement. Should we not be given some figures now on the anticipated budget?

Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government ended up being lectured by the Rwandan Government about not breaking international law, with the Prime Minister even telling the 1922 Committee last night that this is why he could not go further by not leaving the ECHR because the Rwandan Government would not have it? Can the noble Lord detail the exact legal position enshrined in the Bill with respect to the Human Rights Act and the ECHR? Can the noble Lord confirm that it is still the case under this legislation that an individual will still be able to challenge an asylum decision in the courts?

Given the central importance the Government have attached to Rwanda, can the noble Lord give us some numbers? Is all of this for a scheme that will likely cover less than 1% of the people who arrive here to claim asylum? How many people are going to be covered? The treaty itself says that capacity is limited in Rwanda, with the Court of Appeal saying it would be 100, and that talk of thousands was political hyperbole. Can the noble Lord inform your Lordships how many it is?

On the BBC this morning, no Minister could be found for the “Today” programme. I do not know whether they asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but certainly nobody was available for the 8.10 flagship interview. Perhaps it is a good job. The former Home Secretary was available, by the way, and appeared and gave her views very forcefully. On BBC TV, the Cabinet Minister, Chris Heaton-Harris, was asked if Britain could end up receiving Rwandan refugees before it deports anyone there. He answered, “I honestly do not know the answer to that question”. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to tell us.

We need to clear the asylum backlog, go after criminal gangs, tackle problems at the source and come to new arrangements with our European neighbours. Does the noble Lord agree with me that, on this issue of the channel crossings that we all wish to see resolved, we have public policy chaos and a Government ripped apart by division? The current Home Secretary says that Rwanda is not the be-all and end-all. Well, that is not what the reality is for the noble Lord. He will be faced with arguments, including, I suggest, in your Lordships’ House, around whether we have a full-fat solution, a semi-skimmed solution or a skimmed solution. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us which brand of milk he thinks the treaty should actually be.

The country deserves better than this from its Government. The people deserve better than this. Real problems deserve real solutions based on competence, human rights and respect for international law. The noble Lord has had to come today to defend a policy rubbished by his boss, as we know. We have utter chaos, and that is in no one’s interests. This morning, we had a Prime Minister pleading for understanding and support, coming up with the brilliant policy initiative that the way to solve this problem is not to have one Minister but two: one for legal migration and one for illegal migration. I wonder which member of the No. 10 Policy Unit came up with that idea, and whether the noble Lord himself was consulted about that as a solution to the problems.

The plain fact of the matter is that this is real chaos. We have a Rwanda policy that, in the words of their own former Ministers, is doomed and unworkable. Our nation needs and deserves better. There is no sign this Government will be able to deliver it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that this is a mess. It is a mess in which the Government have written themselves a project so bad that we are ending up with an ineffective, expensive and unworkable policy which lacks in human decency. What we should be receiving is a Government that give us a workable solution which is speedy, effective and humane. Adding to that, and worse, it is now pitting the Government against our courts. This is a dangerous path to follow. It risks our freedoms and liberties under the law against excessive overreach from Government.

Disapplying legal protections to a specific group is a threat to anyone who may need the protection of a judge in future. Human Rights are universal: either you have them or you do not. If you take them away from one group of people, they are no longer human rights; they are rights for some humans. It is a dangerous, slippery slope when the Government seek to disapply them to asylum seekers. Which group of people out of favour with the Government will be next?

In effect, we are being asked to believe that the facts established by the Supreme Court are now wrong—in essence, that black is white. When the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Rwanda was unsafe, based on a whole range of facts, but said that at some stage in future things might be different, there was no expectation that this could be achieved by last Monday. One simple line taken from the Government’s Statement proves just that:

“Rwanda will introduce a strengthened end-to-end asylum system”.


It does not say “has introduced” but “will introduce”. The fact will be demonstrated by seeing a new system in place, not simply by producing a statement of expectation. The Statement is simply incorrect in stating that these Supreme Court matters are “concerns”. They are not; they are facts. That is what our highest court ruled on: the facts. Will the Minister acknowledge that the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of facts?

Let us have some facts. By when, exactly, will Rwanda have introduced a strengthened end-to-end asylum system that meets all the international treaties, laws and rules to which the United Kingdom has signed up? What will be the cost of the creation of a new, specialist asylum appeals tribunal in Rwanda and who will meet it? What will be the ongoing annual costs of the running of the tribunal, including the salaries of judges from across the Commonwealth?

How much are the UK Government setting aside for paying for the provision of legal services to asylum seekers in Rwanda? How will the judges be selected? How can we be assured that the judges will be mindful and live to the protection rights of people with protected characteristics—for example, sexual orientation, women who have experienced gender-based violence, religion or race?

There is an alternative to this unworkable, expensive and inhumane policy. We need an effective asylum system where decisions are made swiftly and accurately. We need effective, humane removals of those whose asylum claim is refused. We need a range of workable safe routes so that people who need protection can get to the United Kingdom safely, including an enhanced resettlement scheme, a humanitarian visa and a more effective family reunion route. There is an alternative.

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

My Lords, if there is an alternative, I did not hear one.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether I was invited on to the “Today” programme. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I was not. And I was not necessarily as disappointed as the noble Lord was.

The partnership with Rwanda is now set out in a new treaty, which is binding in international law. It has been agreed by the UK and the Government of Rwanda and was worked on by both parties with close care and attention. It was laid in Parliament yesterday. The treaty, crucially, addresses the conclusion from the Supreme Court on the risk of refoulement to those relocated to Rwanda. I will come back to the Supreme Court decision soon.

The treaty is binding in international law, and it makes it clear that Rwanda will not remove any individuals relocated there to a third country, ensuring that there is no risk of onward refoulement. Relocated individuals will be given safety and support in Rwanda. Those not granted refugee status or humanitarian protection will instead be granted permanent residence so that they are able to stay and integrate into Rwandan society. Once individuals are relocated to Rwanda, they will have their needs looked after while their claims are being considered, including having safe and clean accommodation, food, healthcare and amenities. People are free to leave if they wish and will not be detained.

Far from pitting us against the courts—as the noble Lord, Lord German, alleged—we are responding to them. The treaty does not override the Supreme Court’s judgment; rather, it responds and adapts its key findings to ensure that the policy can go ahead.

The court recognised that changes might be delivered in future which would address the issues that it raised. These are those changes. We believe they address the Supreme Court’s concerns and now aim to move forward with the policy and help put an end to illegal migration. I remind noble Lords that the Supreme Court’s judgment was based on a very specific time in the past; a lot has been done since.

The new treaty—again, this goes to some of the facts that the noble Lord, Lord German, was asking for—also sets out how the independent monitoring committee has been enhanced and will play an important role. It will ensure that obligations under the treaty are adhered to. It will also, in practice, prove that the monitoring committee has the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring and will have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports. It will monitor the entire relocation process from the beginning, including initial screening, to relocation and settlement in Rwanda.

The monitoring committee will be responsible for developing a system to enable relocated individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints directly to the committee. These can be regarding any concerns about the treatment of individuals or alleged failure to comply with the obligations in the treaty. This will provide an additional layer of assurance and ensure that the asylum decision-making process is robust and identifies any issues at an early stage. The monitoring committee will undertake real-time monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months.

The treaty will also strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system through a new appeal body under its courts system—the noble Lord, Lord German, asked me about that. That will have Rwandan and UK Commonwealth co-presidents, all decisions will be reviewed by the co-presidents and they will be responsible for selecting and appointing the ordinary judges, who can be a mix of nationalities. There will be an independent expert on asylum and humanitarian protection law, providing advice to the panel before any appeal is determined for the first 12 months.

Our aim must be to deter the dangerous and illegal journeys to the UK and disrupt the business models of the criminal gangs. I think we can all agree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about costs. I remind the House that the costs here are massive—and they are not just in money but also in lives. We saw an example of that in French waters only a couple of weeks ago. So far, however, the UK has provided Rwanda with an initial £140 million to assist in the economic development of Rwanda and with upfront operational costs. We will not be providing a running commentary on other costs. Those focusing solely on the costs of this partnership are missing the point. It is incredibly frustrating for British people and the taxpayer to spend billions of pounds to house illegal migrants in hotels. Criminal smuggling gangs are continuing to turn a profit using small boats, and we must bring an end to that.

The Prime Minister, far from pleading, was explaining this morning, and he explained that there is a narrow exception

“if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm”.

We have to recognise that as a matter of law, and if we did not we would undermine the treaty we have just signed with Rwanda—as the Rwandans themselves made clear.

To conclude, the numbers to this scheme are uncapped, so I cannot give any estimation of how many may end up in Rwanda. To reassure the noble Lord, Coaker, I am on the side of the Government. I drink my coffee black and do not like milk very much. He will also be very reassured to hear that my happiness is abundant.

Legal Migration

Lord German Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, legal migration is important to the British economy, but it needs to be properly controlled and managed. In the past decade we have welcomed more than half a million people through humanitarian routes, principally from Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. We in the Labour Party support these humanitarian routes, but the overall figures, which are way above these humanitarian routes, are out of control. People are understandably worried about housing, getting local GP appointments and access to public services when they can see that their communities are growing. The net migration figure stood at 672,000 last year, which is three times the amount at the 2019 general election. There has been a 65% increase in work migration visas this year, and this includes a 150% increase in health and care visas.

Yesterday’s announcement is an admission of the Government’s failure on the immigration system and the economy. The Prime Minister is now proposing policies he opposed six months ago and opposing policies he helped introduce. The Labour Party has said repeatedly that net migration should come down and called for action to scrap the unfair 20% wage discount, raise salary thresholds based on economic evidence, and bring in new training requirements linked to the immigration system as well as a proper workforce plan for social care. While the Government have been forced to abandon the unfair wage discount that they introduced, they are still failing to introduce more substantial reforms that link immigration to training and fair pay requirements in the UK, meaning that many sectors will continue to see rising numbers of work visas because of skills shortages. The Labour Party is also calling for a reformed and strengthened Migration Advisory Committee that could advise on the impact of all policies to ensure that the details are correct.

There has been a failure to invest in skills and apprenticeships. Some 160,000 fewer people have taken up apprenticeships under this Conservative Government. For engineering and manufacturing, apprenticeships have fallen by half while engineering visas have increased. The Government have resisted calls to link requirements for skills training to the immigration system, and the UK is failing to train and pay people in the UK properly, leading to a skills shortage and a low-wage economy that relies on migrant workers.

In addition to this, the asylum system is broken. As of October, the number of legacy asylum cases waiting over a year for a decision to be made stood at 32,109. There were, in addition, 85,000 cases under a year old that had not been dealt with; thus, the overall backlog has not been reduced.

The Home Office has now hit its target for the number of caseworkers working on asylum cases, reaching 2,500 full-time staff by the end of the summer. However, the turnover of staff rose between April and August 2023 to 36%, having previously dropped to 25%. This puts into question the level of expertise in the team and the quality of decisions being made.

Following changes to Immigration Rules, which make it easier to withdraw an application on behalf of an asylum applicant, the number of asylum withdrawals has risen to 17,000. In a recent Select Committee hearing, the Permanent Secretary stated that he did not know the whereabouts of these 17,000 people. It may be that the length of time that cases are being left before being processed allows people to abscond, or that details have become incorrect over time, particularly when they move address so frequently; or it may be that the Home Office is being stricter with its criteria for withdrawing cases.

I understand that the reason for the withdrawal is not noted. I ask the Minister: why is the reason for withdrawal not noted and does he believe that it should be? Either way, losing track of 17,000 asylum seekers is representative of the danger of allowing such a backlog to build up in the first place. Of course, legal immigration is important to our economy and, of course, we should meet our humanitarian obligations. But with net migration figures at 672,000 last year, with government policies that flip and flop, and local public services under pressure, it is inevitable that the voting public become sceptical and disillusioned. The Labour Party says there should be a longer-term plan for immigration for the economy and for our country.

I turn to a separate matter, which I received an email about today. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, is not in her place, so I will repeat the questions from Universities UK about the higher-education sector and how it may be affected. First, is the Minister able to outline timescales in terms of reference for the Migration Advisory Committee’s review of the graduate route visa?

Secondly, do any changes to the salary threshold and financial requirements for work and family visas apply to new entrants only and, if so, what is the situation for existing visa holders? Thirdly, can the Minister give clarification on what the new salary discount will be for roles listed on the immigration salary list if they are not part of the 20%?

Lastly, will the Government promote a clear message that international students are welcome in the UK, and that the Government remain committed to the international education strategy?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday’s Statement to the other House was one where figures were plucked from the air; one must draw the conclusion that they are arbitrary, in the sense that they do not have any background in what one might call a forward workforce planning regime for the country as a whole. One would have expected that, if you were to do a workforce planning regime for the future, it would be timed, looking forward as to the requirements on our workforce in this country.

It is certainly the case that the Government are well aware of the length of time that it takes to train individuals and get people moving along that pipeline. It is also certainly the case that the issue of medium-salaried people has come out as one of the major concerns of the document put before us yesterday.

The Statement, when examined for the sorts of people that the country needs who are going to be excluded by the regime, includes such people as butchers, chefs, welders and joiners. It is quite clear to anyone who has been around this country looking at the hospitality and tourism sectors that there are significant shortages of people to fill those places. It is not infrequent that you see a sign for a chef outside a restaurant where they are short of staff. The question to which we need to address ourselves is: where is the forward planning behind the figures that have been put before us?

Equally, the regional pay disparities around the United Kingdom mean that the wage levels in London and the south-east of England are very different from those that you find in other parts of the country. The wage levels that we are being told about have a bit of a sniff for the London and the south-east but are damaging to other parts of the economy where wage levels are different. The correct form of workforce planning would have had all these issues under review.

The issue of social care visas is obviously one of a lack of investment in the past. The Migration Advisory Committee has previously said that the Government’s persistent underfunding of local authorities, which of course fund adult social care, is the most important factor in the staffing crisis. The Government now say in the Statement that care workers without families will ensure that we have enough people to meet the demands of our caring services.

Equally, we are assured that the CQC will now oversee all this information, but there are problems for the CQC because its inspections do not actively address the working conditions and well-being of care workers. In that sense, the independent regulation of health and adult social care contains significant oversight gaps. How is the CQC going to ensure that those are fulfilled for those filling these vital posts from our immigration system?

I have questions about the impact upon companies in the sectors that are most impacted by the Statement. This comes on the back of last night’s discussion in this House. The Minister at that time did not recognise where I got my figures from: it was paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the regulations on fees that we were talking about last night. It says, and the words are quite clear, that there will be a significant impact on companies—these are the Government’s words—of

“tens of millions of pounds”.

On top of that, companies are now having to think whether they can afford to pay these amounts of money in order to recruit. A failure to recruit sufficiently for a company to operate means that the UK company itself might be in danger of not being able to continue to operate, and so UK workers might be affected by that decision. It is worth understanding what training and workforce plan is behind the migration strategy.

I have what might be thought of as a cheeky question, but it is one that worries me considerably, regarding the ability of British citizens to bring their partner to the United Kingdom to live with them, and with their children if they have any. I had a think about this and it was clear to me that a significant number of current government Ministers have partners from another country —we can all think of examples of that. My question is: what number of our population have partners from another country, given that £38,700 is a large figure for someone to be able to bring their partner to this country to live with them?

The danger here is that, in that development of a partnership between two people, the British citizen could think, “I can’t bring my partner to this country, so I will go to their country instead”. If they decide that, we might lose some of the vital people whom we need for our country, especially remembering that we are heading towards a time in our society where, for every elderly person, we will have only two people of working age. There is a big change coming, and we need to be prepared for it.

Have the Government assessed how these restrictions to legal migration will impact the numbers on overstaying visit visas? How many British citizens will be driven out of the country to live with their partners and children elsewhere in the world, as in the question I just addressed? Will the restrictions apply to workers who are already sponsored? Sometimes people have to renew and, when they do, will the restrictions that apply in this new Statement apply to them when they renew their work permissions in this country? Will an existing migrant worker’s salary have to rise in order to extend their visa? Finally, have the Government considered the disproportionate impact that the increase in family visa requirements will have on British citizens who live outside the south of England and London, because of the wage disparities around the rest of the United Kingdom?

That is a range of questions which we need to have answered, but the context of it all is: what is the plan? Is it merely a decision to have an arbitrary number which looks good to the public—or looks good in an election manifesto—rather than one which faces the problems which our economy, and our future as a country, will be needing?

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and say to them that the level of legal migration remains too high. As a result, we have announced the five-point plan—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office announced it yesterday, as the House knows—and this package of measures, taken in addition to the measures on student dependants that we announced in May, means that around 300,00 people who were eligible to come to the UK last year would not be able to in future.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has noted, the UK has experienced unprecedented levels of immigration since the pandemic. The figures are widely understood, and this is partly because of our generosity towards people fleeing conflict and persecution in Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan. Over 80,000 people have immigrated to the UK on our Ukraine, BNO and resettlement schemes in the last year. However, it is also because of the rising numbers of overseas students and care workers that the Government have taken action to address the rise in legal migration.

The new package involves a number of measures—five, which have been noted. We will reduce the numbers on health and social care visas and end the abuse of that route by stopping overseas care workers from bringing in family dependants and requiring social care firms in England to be CQC registered before they can sponsor migrant visas—I will come back to the CQC in a moment. We will remove the right for care workers and senior care workers to bring dependants from spring 2024. Care workers and senior care workers arriving through the health and care visa also bring a large number of dependants per main applicant, with approximately 120,000 dependants accompanying 100,000 care workers and senior care workers in the year ending September 2023. As has been noted, we will increase the earnings thresholds for those arriving on the skilled worker route, with the minimum threshold rising by 48%, from £26,200 to £38,700 from spring of 2024. Those coming on the health and social care visa route will be exempted, so we can continue to bring the healthcare workers that our care sector and NHS need.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, specifically mentioned the shortage occupation list and scrapping the 20% going-rate salary discount for shortage occupations, as recommended by the independent Migration Advisory Committee, which, I note, has not called for any more powers. We will establish a new immigration salary list, which will retain the 20% discount on the general salary threshold. This means that migrants working in lower-paid salary occupations on the immigration salary list will still benefit from the minimum salary floor of 80% of the new general salary threshold of £38,700, but migrants in occupations where going rates are higher than the general salary threshold would not be sub to further salary discounts.

We will ensure that people can bring only dependants whom they can support financially by raising the minimum income for family visas to the same threshold as the minimum salary threshold for a skilled worker. We have also asked the Migration Advisory Committee to review the graduate route to ensure it is fit for purpose, to prevent abuse and to protect the integrity and quality of our UK higher education.

On graduate migrants, I am very happy to reaffirm our commitment to attracting the best and brightest global talent to support growth. We are committed to ensuring that happens and have taken a number of steps to do it, including by introducing an elite route to attract the best and brightest, maintaining the UK’s status as a leading international hub for emerging technologies. We have created a scale-up visa, allowing those with a job offer from a recognised UK scale-up to qualify for a fast-track visa. We have reformed our global talent route by expanding the criteria so that global prize winners automatically qualify, launched a global business mobility visa, and established the high-potential individual visa route to allow graduates from the world’s best universities to come to the UK.

The changes we are introducing—in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—apply only to those who come here on new visas. That means that workers with dependants already in the UK will be able to stay.

The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the salary threshold affecting hospitality, accommodation and food services. Employers will still be able to recruit workers from overseas to those industries, but it is right that we increase the salary threshold to the level of median earnings to ensure that we do not undercut UK workers by using cheaper overseas labour, and to prevent downward pressure on wages.

As my right honourable friend said in answer to Yvette Cooper in the other place—there was no reference in either of the noble Lords’ comments to this—the £7 billion employment package announced in the Spring Budget will help 1.1 million get back to work and “stay in work”.

We do not believe that these measures will discourage carers who contribute to the UK economy. It is still an extremely competitive offer. We launched the health and care worker visa on 4 August 2020. This has delivered on the Government’s commitment to introduce a route which makes it quicker, easier and cheaper for eligible people working in health and social care to come to the UK. Those affected by this package are, as I said earlier, predominantly people with dependants who make a more limited contribution to the economy than those coming under other work routes, minimising the impact on UK growth. Care workers and senior care workers arriving through the health and care visa bring a large number of dependants per main applicant, with approximately 120,000 dependants accompanying 100,000 care workers and senior care workers in the year ending September 2023.

I said I would come back to the CQC. What we mean by regulated activity in the context of social care is that this relates to personal care. Personal care is defined as providing physical assistance to a person where they are unable to perform activities in connection with eating or drinking, toileting, washing or bathing, dressing, oral care or the care of skin, hair and nails. The regulated activities are further detailed in Schedule 1 to the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

There will be a regulatory impact assessment, which will be developed in due course, as well as an equalities impact assessment. I think that answers two of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord German.

I will answer the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about withdrawal from asylum processing. I do not know why we do not record that information. I will endeavour to find out and I will certainly come back to the noble Lord. I can confirm that in the year ending September, 41,858 initial decisions were made in terms of immigration processing. That is twice the number that were made in the previous year. I am reassured that the clearance of the backlog is on track.

These measures are very sensible. They are clearly carefully thought through, and I commend them to the House.

Asylum Seekers: Deportation from France

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot anticipate what may or may not be in the Bill. Obviously, the Bill will be presented to Parliament in the usual way.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, what consideration has the Minister given to the views of the same Interior Minister from France that consideration will be given to giving legal status to undocumented people working in sectors with labour shortages? If the Minister were to give consideration effectively to that matter, surely that would help our relationships with the French Government and everything in the immigration system beyond.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I refer the noble Lord to my earlier Answer. I am not going to speculate on or discuss what the French legal system and the French Interior Minister decide about their own domestic policy.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her persistence, her perseverance and her dedication to this issue. She has raised it time and again, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will listen carefully, particularly to the contributions that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Moylan and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, on the specific matter of citizenship and charging citizens a fee at such a high level for a right that they already have.

But I agree that being British is a hugely valuable commodity, and the Government are right to say that those who can afford to pay for that privilege should be asked to do so. Of course, one would ideally like to cover only the cost and not to have some excess revenue from this source. But if there is an opportunity for some people who can afford it to be asked to pay, and contribute to the general well-being of the Exchequer, in such circumstances where they will receive this valuable right, I believe that is okay.

I am also delighted that there is a fee waiver scheme. I congratulate the Government; I think they recognised the need for this. The problem, as we have heard, is that many people either are unaware of their entitlement or find the process extremely complex. It is also somewhat narrow in scope. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, pointed out the ways in which we might identify children who will be severely disadvantaged by the extraordinary level of fees that someone who cannot afford this kind of money is expected to pay.

The problem is that there is such a huge disparity between the cost of the current proposals and the fee waiver scheme, which potentially has zero cost. Covering the cost is important. Could my noble friend tell me if the Government would consider some kind of in-between category at a reduced fee rate, which covers the cost without the excess, in certain circumstances? It would not be the full fee or full waiver for certain groups, especially for some of the children who might manage a lower amount.

I would be grateful if my noble friend could give us updated estimates of the excess revenue the Government expect to bring in, in excess of the cost of administration, from this scheme. What is the Government’s latest estimate of the potential damage to business from the current proposed level of fees? I agree that we need to make reasonable charges for applications to grant citizenship and migration and nationality rights, but I hope my noble friend takes on board the strength of feeling expressed around the House about the possibility of some off-setting or mitigating measures.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for bringing these issues to us and discussing them. Particularly important is the impact on younger people and those who have no way of making that payment, and the poverty into which some of these people will fall.

I will give noble Lords some indication of the size of this SI and what its impact will be. The Government have been very honest about it; it is in paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I quote:

“The impact on the public sector is also likely to be significant—a net benefit to the public sector in the order of hundreds of millions of pounds per year, predominantly due to increased revenue being generated”.


We are talking about a huge amount of money, which is being generated not just to fulfil the costs of the scheme, but to add to the Exchequer and the volume of money coming in.

One of the people who objected to this and who wrote to the SLSC posited that these fees were some of the highest in the world. In reply, the Government said that it is very difficult to make judgments but

“we believe that UK visa fees are broadly competitive when compared with comparable countries globally”.

That is an assertion, as was the statement by the other group in the other direction. However, for the Government to say this, they must have some working out. When you do a maths sum of that sort, there must be some working out. Will the Minister provide for the House some of the indications that give the Home Office the right to believe that the fees are broadly competitive so that we can understand them? There are two factors here: a huge increase, worth hundreds of millions of pounds to the public sector, and an assertion that they are high compared with everywhere else.

I reiterate and amplify the points about this House’s 21-day rule made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, at the beginning. It is a discourtesy to this House that the rules we apply to the Government have not been followed—not just once or twice but three times in the last month. It strikes me that the SLSC’s polite language is really saying that the Home Office’s procedures are rubbish, because it is discounting this Parliament’s view in observing and looking over the legislation before us. That stands in direct opposition to the Minister’s Statement to this House two weeks ago, on the treaty that the Government were negotiating with Rwanda, which said that the full details of the treaty and the full time that this House requires to examine it would be allowed and provided for. I am grateful for that assertion, because that means that the rules will be followed, but I think that we in this House would like to know whether the Home Office will in future follow all the rules that this House lays upon it.

On the waiver scheme, I note the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo. I will look particularly at fee waivers for applications for limited leave to remain. There may be questions about their effectiveness, but I raise with the Minister the fact that fee waivers for applications for indefinite leave to remain for young people on the five-year route to settlement are not satisfactory. This is a cohort of people who either are under the age of 18 and have lived in the United Kingdom for at least seven years or are aged between 18 and 24 years old and have spent half of their lives in the United Kingdom.

The Government have already recognised their specific position and offered them a more affordable five-year route to settlement, but this offer cannot be accessed by many—I note the age of this cohort—as they are unable to afford the indefinite leave to remain application fee. These are not incoming migrants; they have been accepted as having a right to settlement, and we need to give young people every opportunity to be and feel part of our communities, rather than putting barriers in their way. With the 20% increase in the indefinite leave to remain application fees, will the department give this matter further consideration?

Of course, if more people are unable to afford the indefinite leave to remain application, people will attempt to put in a waiver. Waiver schemes are available, but some people posit that, because they are so complicated, it is necessary to employ a lawyer to work your way through them. Of course, people cannot afford a lawyer, so they do not apply for a scheme and do not apply at all.

The Minister projects—and we heard the figures—that more people will be acceptable for waiver applications, so what is the projected cost of that additional workload for the Home Office from those who have waivers? We need to measure that against the hundreds of millions of pounds a year being sought and brought about by extra revenue.

On the cost to business in this country, the Government have again been honest, saying that, for the changes to the fees mentioned,

“the impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is likely to be significant—we believe there will be a cost to business in the order of tens of millions of pounds per year”.

That is tens of millions of pounds that business will be asked to find. I thought that this Government were not in favour of increasing the taxes on business but, clearly, I have got it wrong. Could the Minister tell me whether that fact that they have placed in their document—that there will be tens of billions of pounds extra that businesses will have to pay the Government—is essentially another tax? The rate that they are asking is far beyond the increase we would expect to see with simply just the cost of living added to it. Any increase in costs, especially at a time when recruitment in specialised roles is already so difficult for many, will have the inevitable outcome, maybe, of driving companies as far as falling out of business. How will the Treasury reconcile lost revenue from small and medium-sized enterprises that are no longer able to afford the fees and recompense them so that they are able to sustain their business?

These are very complex regulations. We are grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, but we are in a position where significant amounts of money are being made from people who can ill afford it and businesses are being asked to fund part of this scheme in a way that will certainly not help the development of our economy.