All 4 Debates between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Viscount Hailsham

Wed 5th Jul 2023
Mon 3rd Jul 2023
Wed 24th May 2023
Illegal Migration Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee stage: Part 1

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Viscount Hailsham
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments take us on to the provisions regarding age assessments. Given that, under Clause 3, unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults, and given the obvious safeguarding risks of adults purporting to be children being placed within the care system, it is important that we take steps to deter adults from claiming to be children and to avoid lengthy legal challenges to age-assessment decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. Receiving care and services reserved for children also incurs costs and reduces the accessibility of these services for genuine children who need them.

Assessing age is inherently difficult, but it is crucial that we disincentivise adults from knowingly misrepresenting themselves as children. Our published data shows that, between 2016 and March 2023, there were 8,611 asylum cases in which an age assessment was required and subsequently resolved. Of those cases, nearly half— 47%, or 4,088 individuals—were found to be adults. This percentage aggregates initial decisions on age taken upon arrival, comprehensive assessments and the outcomes of legal challenges. I make clear that only those assessed to be adults will fall within the duty.

Accordingly, Clause 56 disapplies the right of appeal for age assessments, which is yet to be commenced and was established in Section 54 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, for those who meet the four conditions in the Bill. Instead, those wishing to challenge a decision on age will be able to do so through judicial review, which will not suspend removal, and can continue from outside the UK after they have been removed. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I say that we are keeping the commencement of Section 54 under review, but I am unable to provide a further update at this stage.

Clause 56(5) provides the basis on which a court can consider a decision relating to a person’s age in judicial review proceedings. It provides that a court can grant relief

“only on the basis that it was wrong in law”,

and must not do so on the basis that it

“was wrong as a matter of fact”.

This distinguishes the position that the Supreme Court adopted in its judgment in the 2009 case of the Crown on the application of A v London Borough of Croydon, page eight. The intention is to ensure that the court cannot make its own determination on age—which should properly be reserved for those qualified and trained to assess age—but instead can consider a decision on age only on conventional judicial review principles.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

The court will receive evidence from people who have made these assessments, and courts are well versed in determining which evidence is to be preferred.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

If my noble friend is right, he is effectively saying that people who are detained will be released if there is no prospect of deportation. If that is right, the policy of deterrence is entirely without merit.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

My noble friend is right, in that it is one of the Hardial Singh principles that, if there is no reasonable prospect of removal, that person should not be detained. But I cannot agree with him that the policy of deterrence is not right, because it is clearly the Government’s intention to remove any illegal entrants to a safe third country. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I add that the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed with that being lawful as a matter of principle.

We recognise that circumstances can change. Where that is the case, detention must be reviewed. If it is considered that the anticipated period of detention is not reasonably necessary, the individual will be bailed. This reflects the existing legal and policy position on the use of detention.

It remains the Government’s view that the provisions in Clause 11 provide an appropriate balance between the respective roles of the Home Secretary and the courts. Accordingly, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Viscount Hailsham
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

That is correct: the ECHR memorandum is one of the documents prepared to support the Bill in its passage through Parliament. Obviously, if a matter of interpretation were required, it is the sort of material that those looking for an interpretation might be minded to refer to. Indeed, it is open to those in Parliament to refer to such documents. It is, of course, right to say that the ECHR memorandum is a standard part of the package in relation to public Bills—so, in that sense, it has regular status.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Before the Minister leaves this part of his address, will he tell the House whether it is the intention of the Government that the implementation of the Act should be compliant with all the conventions that are set out in Amendment 4? Do the Government intend to comply with those conventions? This House is entitled to know.

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- Hansard - -

As I have already outlined, it is clear that there is nothing in the Bill that would require the UK to breach its international obligations. The UK takes compliance with those obligations very seriously. As for the other international instruments referred to in these amendments, they have not, by and large, been incorporated into UK domestic law, and we should not seek to do so in this Bill through the back door.

Eurostar St Pancras: Border Control

Debate between Lord Murray of Blidworth and Viscount Hailsham
Tuesday 28th February 2023

(1 year, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I simply do not recognise the noble Lord’s characterisation. Border Force has deployed in Paris e-gates which, in the last 12 months, have processed more than 1.2 million passengers. The service standard of a wait of no longer than 25 minutes for Border Force officers has been maintained throughout that period. There are no delays which are the fault of Border Force.

Viscount Hailsham Portrait Viscount Hailsham (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, in the interests of increasing passenger flow and in the spirit of co-operation, would it not be possible to agree a single, jointly manned border control?

Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

As my noble friend will recall, the agreement at the time of the implementation of the Channel Tunnel was an international one between the United Kingdom and the French Republic. The agreement was that we should have controls in the way that we do. As I say, they work well, and the arrangements are successful.