Asylum Claims

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I am afraid that is rather outside this department’s remit, but I will endeavour to find out the current status and come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Can my noble friend the Minister explain why British courts and tribunals grant asylum to 75% of those who make applications here on first application, whereas French courts grant asylum to only 25% of those making asylum applications on first application? Given that they are both applying the same international laws and agreements, are the French being unduly harsh or the British unduly lenient?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by this amendment. For 18 years, between 2004 and 2022, we had on the statute book an Act of Parliament which said there was an irrebuttable presumption that certain countries on a list were and would always be safe. I do not recall any Member of this Chamber, or anyone in the other Chamber when I was there, demurring. We had on the statute book an Act of Parliament that had no provision for a monitoring committee, and I do not remember any Member of this Chamber or that Chamber complaining about that. For 18 years, we had provisions which had none of the safeguards that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wants to include—and I do not recall him or any other Member of this Chamber demurring.

As I understand it, the only difference was that we were required to have that list by our membership of the European Union and still would have that list now if we had not left the European Union—and I do not recall anybody in this House saying it was wrong that that situation should persist or using it as an argument for leaving the European Union, so that we could then get rid of it, as we did. So, I think we are now making a bit too much of the lack of provisions and safeguards around one black country when we had no concerns about a list of white countries.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

Is it not the case that that legislation did not simply lack the controls advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope? It did not have the controls that are in this Bill. There was no monitoring committee. It simply did not have these controls in that legislation.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, as he always is.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register that I am supported by RAMP. I am grateful for the history lesson, but, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury told us, two wrongs do not make a right, and certainly it was without the history of my time in this House and beforehand. We are dealing with this issue, this country and a Bill about this country, and doing it in the right way.

These amendments seek to build on a view that this House has already taken. The fact is that the treaty is locked into the Bill and we are being asked to affirm that the treaty has made Rwanda a safe country. That is not the view of this House. This House made a determination that it should not ratify the Bill until such time as the conditions placed by the International Agreements Committee were put into operation.

This discussion has gone on through a variety of different parts of this House and its Select Committees, but the significant one was the Government’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I know Members hoped that the report would reach us before Third Reading, but in fact it did not. It was published the day after, so we did not have time to consider it at that point. What the Government said in response is something they have indicated in other statements:

“We will not ratify the treaty until the UK and Rwanda agree that all necessary measures in the treaty are in place”.


However, in subsequent discussions the Government could not tell us which measures were in place and which measures were about to be in place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, said in one of his responses that we were “working towards” the country being safe. It is clear that the Government are asking Parliament not only to declare a fact contrary to a finding of fact by the highest court in the land but to believe in the effectiveness of measures set out by the Government to ensure safety that are not yet fully implemented.

For example, the Minister has already referred to the fact that domestic legislation has still to be passed in Rwanda, including and in particular laws on the processes for making immigration decisions and laws for dealing with appeals. These new laws are to be followed by appropriate training and guidance for practitioners before they can be put into operation.

We are also mindful that David Neal, the former Borders and Immigration inspector, gave evidence to a committee of this House yesterday. He told the committee there were pieces of work that the inspectorate did in relation to the safety of Rwanda that were not yet in the public domain. In particular, he referred to the Home Office’s Rwanda country information report, which was subject to Supreme Court scrutiny but, as we understand it, is complete but not yet published. Other material has also not been scrutinised by our independent inspector because there is no longer one in place.

We are told by the Government that we have sufficient material before us to judge that Rwanda is safe. Putting aside the question of whether Parliament is the right place for people to judge whether a country is safe—we think it might not be—we are being asked, with the Bill, to make that decision ourselves. That it is safe was not the view of this House, and the House made a decision on what it wanted to see before it could determine that it was indeed safe. Now the Government are intent on telling us to change our minds. That is what the Government have to convince us to do. This House has taken its view. That view is now before us and the Government are asking us to change our minds —without the exact evidence that the House required being provided.

These are all areas of concern that make it clear to us that the very basic safeguards that the Home Office has set out in the treaty need to be fully implemented before the Bill is passed. These amendments are crucial to making that happen because they would protect us both now and in the future. We on these Benches are pleased to support them.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened to and read the debates so far with great respect. They have been dominated by distinguished noble Lords who are lawyers, and I am not. I want to raise two questions of fact and ask those noble lawyers, and indeed the distinguished prelates, why they have not mentioned them until now.

The first point has just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Howard. Contrary to what has been asserted many times—that Parliament cannot by law state whether or not a country is safe—in 2004 the Blair Government did just that. They introduced legislation which created an irrebuttable presumption that a number of listed countries were safe. It was subsequently tested in the courts and upheld. Why have none of the noble Lords who have asserted that we cannot do that mentioned and dealt with the fact that we have done it in the past?

The second factual point was raised by the noble Lord who spoke from the Lib Dem Benches. He said that, if we do this sort of thing in the Bill, which gives us the right to override international law and not necessarily to respond to decisions and demands of the European court, we will forfeit our respect and ability to influence people in the international arena. Why does he, and others who have made similar points, not mention the fact that the French Government have done just that? They have returned an asylum seeker to Uzbekistan despite the order of the European court that they should not, and despite even a ruling of the Conseil d’État that they should bring him back. Have they lost all respect in international fora? Have they lost any ability to influence public opinion internationally? Why does that not get mentioned in this place?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I cannot claim to remember this clearly, but did anybody challenge with evidence the earlier cases that my noble friend tries to cite as a precedent? If anybody had had evidence showing facts to be contrary to what was then laid down in statute, does my noble friend think it would have survived a challenge in today’s Supreme Court?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I cannot say what today’s Supreme Court would do, but the supreme courts of our country in those days did entertain a challenge. Greece, in particular, was not thought to be safe, and presumably they would not think now that France is safe. They upheld the right of the Executive to make those decisions and did not try to supersede them or consider evidence as to whether the accusations were correct.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

This is a different situation. Here we have the expression of opinion by the Supreme Court being displaced by the Government through legislation.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I do not think it is relevant to cite France. The fact is that this country has a great reputation for upholding the rule of law and international law, and we play a great part across the world. This Bill is threatening that reputation and that role. France does not have that reputation or role, in my opinion.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am not sure what the noble Baroness’s question to me is, but, as a great Francophile, I am sorry to hear her abuse the French nation in that way.

My noble friend said that this was different because the Supreme Court has expressed an opinion. Amendment 5 says that a purpose of the Bill should be to uphold the rule of law. As I understand it, the rule of law in this country for 1,000 years has meant that laws made and approved by our elected representatives are partially implemented by the courts, and all of us—citizens, public officials, Ministers and police, and even lawyers and bishops—are subject to those laws. If we do not like the law, we can try to persuade our elected representatives to change it. If Parliament feels that the courts have interpreted laws in a way that Parliament did not intend or that is out of line with the values and interests of the public who elect it, Parliament can change the law. That is what we are doing. We have a perfect right to do so as long as Parliament remains sovereign.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was in Rwanda last Thursday. More particularly, I was in the Rwandan Parliament. I can confirm to your Lordships’ House that, on Wednesday last week, the Rwandan Chamber of Deputies ratified the treaty by 64 votes to two. Rwanda is a monist country, unlike this country, which is dualist. That means that the international obligations of Rwanda are enforceable in domestic courts. Once ratified by the Senate of Rwanda, the treaty will have effect legally within Rwanda.

Noble Lords will recall that the basis upon which the Supreme Court found Rwanda to be unsafe was particularly set out in the judgment. Each and every paragraph of the treaty obtained by the United Kingdom Government with the Government of Rwanda was targeted at the decision of the Supreme Court. Noble Lords will notice that, with the approval and ratification of the treaty in Rwanda, there is simply no basis upon which it can be said Rwanda is unsafe. These amendments are unnecessary.

--- 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.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on whether he agrees with the analysis from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, of the status of this Bill we are debating. The noble Lord said it was inconceivable that there would be any refoulement and that it is okay to proceed without the various recommendations in place. In the longer term, they would need to be in place—because it was in the longer term, I think, that he was suggesting that there might be justification in the suspicions that have been raised. I think that was the point the noble Lord was making.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling these amendments and for his constructive communication before doing so. In Committee there was clear interest in developing a mechanism to ensure that the terms of the treaty are and continue to be adhered to. I hope the House will see that there is value in how he has integrated these ideas into these amendments. Amendments 4 and 7 together provide a clear framework for ensuring the ongoing safety of Rwanda, rooted in the terms of the treaty the Government have negotiated. I will not say any more, because the noble and learned Lord set out the terms of his amendments very clearly.

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

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the first instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.

The Home Office is the first line of enforcement against illegal migration and works across government to prevent individuals without lawful status in the UK accessing work, benefits and services. Illegal working often results in abusive and exploitative behaviour, the mistreatment of unlawful migrant workers and revenue evasion. It can undercut legitimate businesses and have an adverse impact on the employment opportunities of people who are lawfully in the UK.

Employers have a role to play in ensuring that all their employees have the right to work in the UK. Since 2008, this has been underpinned by the right-to-work civil penalty scheme, under which employers are required to carry out prescribed checks on individuals before employing them. This is to ensure that they are lawfully allowed to work in the UK. If an employer employs somebody who does not have the right to work in the UK, they may be liable for a civil penalty. Employers can avoid liability for a civil penalty if the correct right-to-work checks are carried out before the individual commences employment.

The level of civil penalty for non-compliance has remained the same since 2014, diluting its impact as a deterrent to those who facilitate illegal working, including instances of labour exploitation. Accordingly, the Government intend to increase the civil penalty for employers from £20,000 to £60,000, by virtue of the Immigration (Employment of Adults Subject to Immigration Control) (Maximum Penalty) (Amendment) Order 2023.

This will ensure that the scheme continues to act as a deterrent in respect of employers who employ illegal migrants and send a clear message that only individuals with a right to work in the UK can secure employment. In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £45,000. Employers who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a further 30% reduction in the overall amount, after reductions have been applied for any specified mitigating factors.

It remains a criminal offence for migrants to work illegally in the UK, or where the individual is in the UK unlawfully. The offence of working illegally carries a maximum penalty of 51 weeks’ imprisonment in England and Wales and six months’ imprisonment in Scotland and Northern Ireland, or a fine.

The second instrument for noble Lords to consider in this single debate is the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023, which will be in force in England only.

Since 2014, anyone offering rental accommodation in the private rented sector should carry out checks on new adult occupiers before renting to them. This is to check that the individual has the right to rent, and is commonly known as the right-to-rent scheme. Allowing those without a lawful right to be in the UK to rent property enables them to establish a settled life in the UK. This creates costs to the public purse, including through the provision of local authority support, and reduces the amount of housing stock available to those who are lawfully residing in the UK. It often allows abusive and exploitative behaviour, with rogue landlords housing unlawful migrants in unsafe accommodation.

The maximum civil penalty for landlords, including letting agents, will be raised—by virtue of the Immigration Act 2014 (Residential Accommodation) (Maximum Penalty) Order 2023—from £3,000 to £20,000. In the case of a first breach, the starting point is £10,000. Landlords and letting agents who elect to pay the penalty via the fast payment option will benefit from a 30% reduction, from £10,000 to £7,000 or from £5,000 to £3,500 as applicable. As is the case now, the maximum penalty will be levied only on an employer, landlord or letting agent who has breached one of the schemes on more than one occasion in a three-year period, where the fast payment option was not utilised and where no specified mitigating factors apply.

Employers, landlords and letting agents can also appeal a civil penalty decision if, following an objection to the Home Office, that decision has been upheld. An appeal must be on the same grounds as the objection and an employer, landlord or letting agent must make the appeal within 28 days, registering it at a county court or sheriff’s court. This allows accidental non-compliant employers, landlords or letting agents safeguards against penalties.

In summary, these draft orders aim to change the behaviour of rogue employers, landlords and letting agents; to eliminate any financial gain or benefit from non-compliance; to tackle the harm caused by regulatory non-compliance where appropriate; and to deter future non-compliance. I therefore commend them to the 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?

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I really do not know how to answer that.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this legislation, not least because no alternative has been put forward by any of the critics in this House. Will the Government take advice from the French Government on how to announce these matters? On 31 October, when the French Interior Minister announced that France would ignore rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, there was no outrage from anyone in this House, nor from Foreign Office mandarins, the Bishops’ Benches or the opposition parties. On 14 November, France put it into practice and deported an Uzbek refugee, despite a ruling from the European court that it should not do so and ignoring its own domestic legal procedures. There was no outcry; there was not even a BBC report of this event. In America, Biden, who originally criticised the behaviours of his predecessor, has refouled 1 million refugees across the border with Mexico in the past 18 months. If human rights are international and universal, why do they not apply in France and America?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend makes a good point, as he did earlier this week when asking his Question. I must say, since answering it I have pored over the various publications one would normally expect to make remarks about such a potential outrage, and I have found that they are few, so my noble friend is quite right to make that observation. Obviously, it is not for a Minister to comment from the Dispatch Box on what other countries are doing, but I would observe that plenty of other countries in Europe and around the world are investigating similar schemes to the one we propose. We have those conversations on a regular basis, including with countries such as Germany and Denmark.

Asylum Seekers: Deportation from France

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Lilley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have received about the remarks by Gérald Darmanin, the French interior minister, that his government is prepared to deport asylum seekers deemed dangerous, in breach of rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

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

My Lords, French policy on asylum is a matter for the French Government. His Majesty’s Government continue to co-operate closely with France to tackle illegal migration and to keep our borders and citizens safe.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he recall warnings from human rights lawyers and Foreign Office mandarins that if we were to set aside a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights we would become pariahs, along with Russia and Belarus? Is it not passing strange that, when France announced its intention to do so, there was no outcry? Since 14 November, when it refouled an Uzbek refugee to his homeland despite the court ruling it illegal, risking torture and death, the whole liberal establishment, from the BBC to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

—and the SDP—has been as silent as mice. Is there one rule for our friends in Europe and another for Britain?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think it would be wise for me to restate what the Prime Minister has said, which is that he is taking

“the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation”.

He made that point on 15 November. He went on to say that he does not believe that

“anyone thinks the founding aim of the European Convention on Human Rights was to stop a sovereign Parliament removing illegal migrants to a country deemed to be safe in Parliamentary statute and binding international law. I do not believe we are alone in that interpretation”.

So I say to my noble friend that I look forward to informed discussion on the recent French decision.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers: Safe Routes

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there have been a number of petitions and general requests to look at very specific safe and legal routes. As I understand it at the moment, there are no plans to adopt any for any specific countries, but I am sure they are being kept under review.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that all those coming by small boats are coming from a safe country, France, and that it is absurd for us to suggest that they are all coming from an unsafe country? One of the reasons they may be wanting to leave France to come here is that France refuses asylum to three times as high a proportion as we do. Can my noble friend explain why that is?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I will certainly confirm that France is a safe country. How the French asylum system works is, I am afraid, well beyond my knowledge.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I support the idea of safe and legal routes, which are already in the Bill, but there is no way that they will stop the boats. I have several questions for those proposing these amendments. Would they give safe and legal routes to people already in safe neighbouring countries in Europe, such as France? If not, it will do little or nothing to stop the boats coming from France. If we do not give them safe routes, they will continue to come as they do at present. If we decide to give safe and legal routes to people already in safe countries in Europe, I suggest that that should not be our priority. Our priority should be helping the young lady in Tehran and the people coming directly from persecution, or from immediately neighbouring countries, rather than from already safe countries.

My next question is: will the UK bear the costs of assessment, accommodation and litigation, through all the appeal stages we allow here, to those applying overseas? If so, those costs can be huge. I again suggest that that money would be better used helping people languishing in refugee camps in the Middle East, where we can help many times more people for the same amount of money than if we bring them to this country.

My third question is: will there be a cap on the safe and legal routes? There is a cap in the Government’s Bill, but there certainly is not in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. If there is a cap, anyone applying above the number of the cap is not prevented from coming by small boat across the channel. So it is a deliberately misleading fallacy to suggest that safe and legal routes will stop the passage across the channel if there is a cap.

I will also address the bishops’ letter in the Times and the most reverend Primate’s promises in previous debates that he was going to bring forward practical measures to solve the problem, while accepting that we could not take unlimited numbers of people. In fact, in that letter and in the amendments that he has put forward, he has not come forward with a policy; he has come forward with a policy to have a policy. It is not—

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

May I just continue and then perhaps the most reverend Primate can ask three questions in one go?

It is a policy to have a policy. It is not even a policy for him to have a policy; it is a policy for the Government to have a policy. It is a policy that the Government’s policy must be agreed by other Governments overseas. I give way to the most reverend Primate.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

I hardly know where to begin.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

By giving us a policy.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

If the noble Lord would wait for a second, I would be able to respond. If he were to look at the debate on Friday 9 December, which I led, he will find that a policy is set out there very clearly. One has also been set out very clearly in an article in the Times a few weeks ago, which has been repeated on numerous occasions by other Members of these Benches.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I have reread the debate on 9 December and he does not give a policy in it. I ask him to reread it himself, come back to the House and tell us what that policy is. Because it is not there; it is a non-policy. His policy for other people to have policies is not a policy.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

There are no rules of order in this House.

I therefore hope that we will stop the pretence that there is a simple means of stopping the flow of refugees across the channel, risking their lives—and, once here, inevitably being removed—other than the policy of deterrence or prevention.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, it has certainly been quite a debate, has it not? I agree strongly with the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley. It gives me difficulty and regret not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, who are clearly striving to help people who really need help.

The question here is whether this bit of law will help or not, and I suggest to the House that that is not relevant to the actual problem on the ground of dealing with a very wide range of cases. I have been in a number of difficult countries and I can assure noble Lords that lots of people live in real difficulty and fear and would well want, and be justified in seeking, to move to the UK, especially if they had friends or relatives here. However, it seems to me that what we have here is not so much a problem of law as a problem of policy; we need to be much clearer on what we are trying to achieve and how we will achieve it.

For example, where will applications be submitted? You could do it on the internet, but the other stages that would then have to be dealt with could not be done satisfactorily on the internet. It could be done by the embassies overseas; there was some ability to do that in the past. However, the numbers are now astronomical—tens or hundreds of thousands, maybe more—and there is no way that an embassy could do that. Even if it could, the host country would say, “All right, you deal with them in your embassy—you can have a special office, if you like—but on the condition that, if you fail an applicant, you then deal with the consequences”. Of course, you would be left with huge numbers of people who we had judged were not sufficiently strong cases; they would be there in country X but they would be our responsibility.

Then there will be the question—I will be very brief—of where and how the interview process will be conducted. How would the claims be prioritised? What would happen to those whose claims fail? These questions have been completely unconsidered. We should not be passing laws and letting the thinking be done later.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Viscount and others who have spoken on the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord German. I now come to this place for my daily dose of disappointment. It seems to me that the Minister is deliberately missing the point. He cannot be failing to see it, and I very much regret having to say that.

Who do noble Lords trust to make these decisions: a Minister or the courts? I will tell them something about the latter, in case they have never seen any of these cases in court. Judges sit day after day in the Administrative Court, hearing case after case involving asylum and refugees, and they make decision after decision about whether a period of detention is too long, too robust or unreasonable in some other way. They have built up a corpus of law which has become reliable and admired not just in this place but throughout our jurisdiction and the common law world.

Make your choice. I am going to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why our courts, and our officials acting under their duties, reach such different decisions from the courts and officials on the continent? Why do we reject only 25% of claims for asylum, whereas France rejects 75%?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this is Report and that intervention is not appropriate, I am afraid.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Lord Lilley Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does not the fact that the Appeal Court has disagreed with the High Court, and within the Appeal Court the Chief Justice has disagreed with two of his colleagues, illustrate that essentially we have handed over to the judiciary subjective political decisions? I submit that that is bad for the judiciary and a derogation of the obligations of this Parliament. I appreciate that the Minister cannot suggest any change in that legal status from his position at the Dispatch Box, but will he recognise that there will be growing calls, not just from me, for Parliament to take back the right to make these decisions and relieve the judiciary of an unwelcome role which politicises it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. As the Lord Chief Justice made clear in his summary of the judgment which he gave earlier today, the decision taken by the court was founded on a perception of a possible breach of Article 3 of the European convention. Under the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998, that meant that the decision was unlawful. It is unquestionably right that that was the basis for the Court of Appeal’s decision today. Be that as it may, the point remains that even that thin basis for the decision was made by only two of the three judges. For that reason, it is entirely appropriate that the Government appeal the decision.