Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1E.

1E: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D and D1. I am grateful to noble Lords on all Benches for their careful consideration of this Bill. We have debated the same issues for some time, and it is of course right that the Bill is properly scrutinised. However, the time has come to get the Bill on to the statute book.

Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which seeks to make it clear in the Bill that it must have due regard to international law and specific domestic legislation. As I made clear yesterday, the Government take their responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. The Bill simply ensures that Parliament’s sovereign view that Rwanda is a safe country is deferred to and binding in domestic law. This is to avoid systemic legal challenges frustrating removals. What it does not mean is that the Bill legislates away our international obligations. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations.

In relation to domestic law, I have set out in previous debates the provisions in the treaty that take account of the needs of children and those who are victims of modern slavery. Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees, having already hosted over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, including women and children, and it has the necessary provisions in place to support those who are vulnerable.

I turn to Amendment 3G in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill I fear I am repeating much of what I have previously stated, but it is important to make it clear and to re-emphasise that we will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

Article 24 of the treaty states that the treaty will

“enter into force on the date of receipt of the last notification by”

Rwanda or the UK

“that their internal procedures for entry into force have been completed”.

Both I and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton set out yesterday the details of the internal procedures that are now in place and continue to be put in place. We have spoken at length during our many debates about the monitoring committee, so I do not propose to reiterate all the details which are clearly set out in the Government’s published policy statement. However, it is important to point out again that the joint committee and the independent monitoring committee will oversee the partnership and ensure that the obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. This will prevent the risk of any harm to relocated individuals, including potential refoulement, before it has a chance to occur. As I said yesterday, there will be an enhanced phase of monitoring.

As I also set out yesterday, Article 4(1) of the treaty sets out that it is for the UK to determine

“the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under this Agreement and the number of requests”.

This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further consideration. Pausing removals to a particular country in response to any potential changes which may affect that country’s safety and suitability for returns is the general approach the Government take across the board and will continue to take when looking to relocate individuals to Rwanda.

Moving to Amendment 6F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, as clearly expressed by the other place on several occasions now, this is an amendment the Government simply cannot accept. It seeks to undermine the key measures of the Bill and is completely unnecessary. We have made it clear that we cannot allow relocations to Rwanda to be frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges on its general safety. In this context, the safety of a particular country is a matter for Parliament, and one on which Parliament’s view should be sovereign. The evidence we have provided and the commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda through the internationally binding treaty enable Rwanda to be deemed a safe country. This Bill makes it clear that this finding should not be disturbed by the courts.

Turning to Motion D, which relates to Amendment 10F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, as I said yesterday—and I again reassure the House—once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will re-visit and consider how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP-eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve and have earned. The Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. We will not turn our backs on those who have served.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment B1, as an amendment to Motion B.

I have asked for a further amendment in lieu to be put down, because I have raised important issues which need to be resolved before the Bill finally passes. As has been mentioned by the Minister, the Act will come into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force. This means that your Lordships are being asked to say that, as from that very moment and without more, Rwanda is a safe country. That is not all, as Clause 2 states that from that date, every decision-maker, including the Secretary of State himself,

“must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.

That is so, whether or not the treaty has been fully implemented, and whether or not Rwanda ceases to be safe some time in the future. The Secretary of State, just like any other decision-maker, will be locked by the statute into the proposition that Rwanda is a safe country, with no room for escape. In other words, it is no use his advisers saying that things still need to be done before all the protections and systems that the treaty provides for are in place. Nor is it any use his advisers saying that as these arrangements have broken down, Rwanda can no longer be considered safe. The Secretary of State is required by the statute to disregard that advice. He has no discretion in the matter. That is what the word “conclusively” in Clause 2 means.

The Minister has told the House several times that the Government are not obligated by the treaty to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change. That may well be so, but that is not what the Bill says. The Secretary of State is bound by the statute to ignore any such changes. He is required by Clause 2 to treat Rwanda as safe, conclusively, for all time. If the Minister will forgive me, his head is buried in the sand, like that of the proverbial ostrich.

My amendment seeks to add two provisions to Clause 1. Before Rwanda can be judged to be a safe country, the mechanisms that the treaty provides for must be put into practice. Ratifying the treaty is an important step, but that is not enough. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the situation on the ground is still being developed. The treaty must be implemented before Rwanda can be considered safe. My amendment seeks to write into the Bill a provision whereby Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement from the independent monitoring committee that the key mechanisms the treaty provides for have been created. It provides that Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of the Act if the Secretary of State makes a statement to Parliament to that effect. In other words, it provides the Secretary of State with the escape clause he needs if he is to escape from the confines of Clause 2, should that situation develop.

I remind your Lordships of what Sir Jeremy Wright said in the other place when my amendment was being considered there on 18 March:

“But it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change … the Government … should give some thought to the situation of the Bill…it must be right for Parliament to retain the capacity to reconsider and if necessary revise it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; cols. 679-80.]


Developing the point this afternoon, he said that I was wrong in my then amendment to give it to the monitoring committee to decide whether Rwanda was safe, as this should be a matter for Parliament. I agree with him and, as it happens, I have already deleted the reference to the monitoring committee from this part of my latest draft. What I am proposing now is that it be left entirely to the Secretary of State to decide, although he would no doubt seek the advice of that committee.

Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland, both of whom spoke in favour of my amendment last time, also spoke in support of it this afternoon. Sir Robert Buckland accepted that there needs to be a system by which it can be verified that the treaty has been fully implemented. He said that to do this would reduce the possibility of legal challenge. He said that a reliable method of doing this was to use the monitoring committee set up by the treaty itself. He also said that there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with the situation if Rwanda is no longer safe, without resort to the time-consuming method of primary legislation. That is what my amendment seeks to provide, and as to the question of what happens in the future, my system is flexible: the Secretary of State can come to Parliament and say that Rwanda is not safe. He does not need primary legislation, so the Act is still there, and he could come back when the situation is cured to say that Rwanda can be regarded as safe now. It provides not only an escape clause but flexibility to enable the Act to continue if necessary, without the amending legislation.

The Commons reasons set out in the Marshalled List are exactly the same as last time. They state that my amendments are “not necessary” because the Bill comes into force when the treaty comes into force, and that

“it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the treaty”.

No doubt that is so, but that still fails to face up to what I am saying on both points.

In short, the coming into force of the treaty is not enough. We need confirmation and verification that it has been implemented before we can make the judgment that Rwanda can be considered safe. It simply is not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change.

I regret that I have had to press my points yet again. It is not my intention to obstruct the operation of the Bill in any way. My amendment is necessary to make sense of the Bill. It is modest, simple and easy to operate. The other place needs to think yet again.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not believe that those on the Front Bench here agree with their own Government on this. Their Government are asking them and all their Back-Benchers to vote for something that is morally bankrupt—something that goes against what we promised those who stood with us in Afghanistan. We promised that we would protect them—but we are not going to do that, because my noble friend’s amendment will not be passed if we send it to the other place and those there do not give way. We are not going to exempt them from the provisions of the Bill. It does not matter what political party you stand for; that cannot be right. I ask and urge every Member of your Lordships’ House not only to consider the noble and learned Lord’s Motion B1 but, when we come to my noble friend’s Motion D1, to consider what the consequences will be for this country if we cannot ensure that our word is our bond.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. The House of Commons has now considered and rejected these amendments on several occasions. I will keep my remarks brief and simply remind noble Lords of the key points.

We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability. The Bill complies with our international obligations and allows direct access to the courts and an appropriately limited possibility of interim relief, consistent with what is required by the ECHR. No word is being broken. We will not turn our backs on those who have supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.

It is simply not right for criminal gangs to control our borders and decide who enters the UK. It is not right that they exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk—their own and others’. It would not be right if this Parliament did not pass this legislation, which will enable us to protect those being exploited, protect our borders and stop the boats.

Motion A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3F.

3F: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion B. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Motion C

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6E.

6E: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C; I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) not moved.

Motion D

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10E.

10E. Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D; I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10F in lieu—

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3B and 3C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3D.

3D: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

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

My Lords, in moving Motion B I will also speak to Motions D, D1, E, F and F1. At this late stage in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, it has been made unequivocally clear, here and in the other place, that it remains the Government’s priority to stop the boats. As I have stated before, the deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. We need to take swift action now to put in place the policy that will enable relocations to Rwanda to take place, to create that deterrent and stop the boats. We have seen the deterrent effect work for Albania and we need to replicate it for everyone else.

I turn to Motion B and Amendment 3E. We have made it clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under it. Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of country situations, including Rwanda, and this will not change. The published country information notes include information from a wide range of sources, such as media outlets, local, national and international organisations, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

The treaty also sets out clearly in Article 4.1 that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further considerations.

The Government of Rwanda’s commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty has been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation. The recent steps taken were set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart in the last group. On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. A complaints process has been set up and will be further developed as we progress further into the partnership.

Motion D1 and Amendment 7D would result in the provisions of Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions on age made by a designated person or local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda, and would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, initial age decisions of immigration officers at the border. The initial decision on age is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment.

As part of this process, on arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18. This is a deliberately high threshold and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that, where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation by a local authority, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. This approach has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case BF (Eritrea) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021, UK Supreme Court 38.

We know that assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the 2023 Act, and there are obvious safeguarding risks of adults being placed within the care system. It is therefore crucial that we take steps to safeguard and swiftly identify genuine children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges to age decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. This amendment would simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.

Furthermore, this amendment would give rise to differential treatment. The amendment would result in Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions by local authorities and the National Age Assessment Board if the person is to be removed to Rwanda. That would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country under the 2023 Act. Decisions of immigration officers and the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) would therefore not fall within Section 57 if removal is to Rwanda. In judicial reviews to these decisions suspensive appeal rights could apply, and the judicial review could be heard on a matter-of-fact basis. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.

I turn to Motion E and Amendment 9. As I have previously set out, under the internationally binding treaty the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs that an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all the necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. Safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedures on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023, which state that

“At any stage in the refugee status determination … and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate a person is vulnerable”.


The standard operating procedures set out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process.

Victims of human trafficking and human slavery will receive the necessary support that they need in Rwanda, as they would in the UK. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. To that end, the government amendment in lieu—Amendment 9C—requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of this legislation as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the treaty.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House how far the scope of the annual report will go beyond what the monitoring committee will be doing, so that both the Government and Parliament are able to scrutinise exactly what is going on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not know how far it will differ—or not, as the case may be—from the monitoring committee, so I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that subject.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. Can the Minister confirm that, before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group my noble and learned friend discussed how the Government will be made aware of whether or not treaties should be ratified and so on. That is also dealt with in considerable detail, as we have rehearsed from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, in the agreement that was published in January of this year—starting, I believe, at paragraph 101—so I will not go through it all again.

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

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to say how much I support the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with respect to slavery, and my noble friend Lady Lister’s comments with respect to children. We will also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on his amendment, should he test the opinion of the House. We think it is a very sensible amendment; it simply seeks reports saying that the things that are required to be implemented have actually been implemented. One has only to look at the International Agreements Committee report, which lists out 10 things in particular that it feels should be implemented before you can say that Rwanda is safe. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, there has been no answer from the Government, other than some vague platitudes as to progress being made and steps being taken to ensure that these things will happen, rather than that they have happened.

Similarly, we support the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made with the second part of that amendment: to actually reflect on what happens in the future should, for whatever reason, changes happen in the environment with respect to Rwanda—political or whatever—that would require Parliament to reconsider its original decision that it was safe. We very much support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has put before us.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his amendment, and say how much we support it. The case was made in the Sunday Telegraph, as my noble friend pointed out, with 13 military and diplomatic leaders putting forward the case for exempting those who have served this country from the provisions of the Bill. This is something that we as a country should embrace without any debate or controversy at all. I say that because it is important that we support my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, but also that the size of the majority is such that the other place is forced to reconsider the bland statement it made: “Don’t worry. We’ll revisit this at the end of the deliberations we are having”. There is no certainty in what the Government are saying.

It is so important that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is in the Bill. What it requires, and what the people of this country want, is not some reconsideration of the policy in future but a certainty that those who have served with our Armed Forces, or served us in whatever circumstances, can be assured that the promises made to them are adhered to and kept.

I cannot believe that we as a country would turn our back on those who have served with us. It is unbelievable that we should be in this situation. I say to the Minister and others who may feel it important that they vote with the Government that we are talking about men and women who have served our country, stood alongside our Armed Forces and served with us to deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. How on earth can we think it appropriate that the provisions of this Bill and the treaty should apply to them? It is simply unacceptable. As such, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment gives us a way of saying to the Government: “Think again. We believe it should be on the face of the Bill”. I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend when he tests the opinion of the House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To restate for the record, the Government’s priority is obviously to stop the boats. Although we have made progress, more needs to be done. We need a strong deterrent; we need to operationalise this partnership with Rwanda. Only by applying this policy to everyone without myriad exceptions will the deterrent work. We are not diminishing our responsibilities to provide support to those who are vulnerable, and we have ensured that the necessary support will be provided in Rwanda. We are sending the clearest signal that we control our borders, not the criminals who charge migrants exorbitant amounts to come here via illegal routes on unsafe small boats.

I will endeavour to deal with all the points that have been raised. I turn first to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I restate for the record that as part of the process, upon arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 —I emphasise “significantly”. This is a deliberately high threshold, and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child, pending further observation by a local authority, which will usually be in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment.

I turn to Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. As he correctly pointed out, Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of countries’ situations, including Rwanda’s, and that will not change.

One of the things we have discussed in previous debates on this subject is that there will be a real-time enhanced monitoring phase by the monitoring committee. The enhanced phase will ensure that the monitoring and reporting takes place in real time, so that the monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings, and of course identify any areas of improvement or urgently escalate issues that may place a relocated individual at risk of real harm. This enhanced phase is dealt with in paragraphs 106 to 112 of the policy statement, and I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that, of course, if the facts change, this means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty. That may very well prompt the parliamentary occasion to which he referred. I am afraid I cannot say quite what form such an occasion may take; if I have anything to do with it, it will definitely include alcohol.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way on that point? My first problem with the Bill is that I am asked to say that something is safe when it is clearly not safe, and the Government have said that it is not. What I am really asked to say is that after all this has happened it will be safe, but the Government do not seem to explain to me exactly what will happen before we get to that.

I have another problem: how can I possibly vote that it will always be safe? I am not very keen on lawyers, but surely it is a very simple matter of saying that if the monitoring committee recommends to the Secretary of State that Rwanda is no longer safe, the Secretary of State can in fact change the situation as regards Rwanda. It seems very simple to me. If I had been the Minister, the first question I would have asked my civil servants is, “What happens if the situation changes?”, and my civil servants would not have left that room until they had given me an answer. How did he allow his civil servants to leave the room?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already stated that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there has been a change, unexpected or otherwise, in the in-country situation in Rwanda.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The Minister uses the phrase “not be obligated”. That just means they do not have to do it, but it does not alter the legal position.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the definition of the word “obligated”.

The Bill builds on the treaty and the published evidence pack and makes it clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, and it does address the concerns of the Supreme Court. The courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton and I have dealt with exactly where Rwanda is in terms of ratification and so on. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s finding that a policy of removing individuals to safe third country where their asylum claims would be determined did not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that finding. The Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered in future which could address those concerns, and those changes are being delivered.

Turning to Motion F1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and spoken to powerfully, if I may I say so, by other noble Lords, I again reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. I will go a little further here and say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that there is no intention to turn our backs on those who have served.

Finally, I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not like the Government’s amendment in lieu, but I am afraid there is very little else that I can say on that subject.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Before my noble and learned friend sums up on his Motion, I say to the Minister that he has not answered the question about what happens if there is a change in Rwanda and it is no longer safe.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to differ from the noble and learned Baroness. I appreciate that it is a difficult place to be, but I think I have answered the question. As I have said before on a number of occasions, the Government are not obligated to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.

6C: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7C.

7C: Because the Commons consider that is it not appropriate to amend the age assessment provisions of existing legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9C in lieu.

9C: Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“Report about victims of modern slavery or human trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare and publish an annual report about the operation of this Act as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty, and
(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.
(2) The first report must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period.
(3) Subsequent reports must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the last day of the period to which the previous report related, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the report relates.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.

10C: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

Police: Joe Anderson

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Heseltine]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conduct of the police in their treatment of Joe Anderson, who resigned as the Mayor of Liverpool in 2021.

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

My Lords, an investigation involving Mr Anderson remains ongoing and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment while that remains the case. The police are rightly independent of government and decisions concerning investigations are operational ones for the respective police forces to make.

[Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, was arrested on serious charges, including fraud and bribery. That was three years and four months ago. He lost his job, his reputation and his income. No charge has been made since then. Does my noble friend the Minister think that is justice?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to comment on whether this is justice or not. The fact is that the force has advised that this investigation remains ongoing and live. That includes ongoing investigation with the Crown Prosecution Service. By way of further context, Mr Anderson has previously challenged the decision to arrest him by way of judicial review, including with an appeal, and was unsuccessful in the courts. Since then, neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf has made a complaint to the police. However, the force has confirmed that it is seeking to conclude this investigation as expeditiously as possible.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—one of the few Tories whose reputation is still strong in the city of Liverpool, thanks to the work following the Toxteth riots all those decades ago. I declare an interest insomuch as Joe Anderson is a friend of mine. He is a man who—as has just been said—has been destroyed. His reputation has been completely and totally destroyed, and everything that goes with it, although he has not been charged with a single thing. It reminds me of Sir Cliff Richard. Do not start charging and making allegations across anywhere to anyone if you do not have proof and cannot substantiate what you say. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to this man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that is not a question: it is a statement. However, I am going to be unable to develop my theme, which is that I am afraid that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations, as the House well understands.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, we are not asking the noble Lord to comment on the investigation. Will he return to the question of justice, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and reflect on the words of the Liverpool-born Prime Minister William Gladstone, who said that

“justice delayed is justice denied”?

Is it not outrageous that, after all this time, this has been hanging over someone and their family? The expedition of this case is the issue that the noble Lord has raised, not whether it is right or wrong.

Secondly, as far as the politics of Liverpool is concerned, it does not help politics or good governance for a case to fester like this for so long, undoing some of the achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who, as Secretary of State for the Environment, came to the city of Liverpool in 1981 and said, rightly, that he did not know that conditions such as those existed in this country. He vowed to do something about it, working across the political divide. Anything that impedes those achievements would be a very negative thing for Liverpool and the country as a whole.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord has to say on the subject, but I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. The noble Lord is, in effect, inviting me to comment on the complexity of the investigation and various other operational aspects of it, in order to make a judgment as to whether it is delayed, denied or whatever. I cannot do that.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my business connections in Liverpool, but I must ask the Minister to come back to the general question of the longevity of this investigation. We have just had a Member of the other House who was under suspicion for two and a half years, unable to do his job, and then no case was held against him. I am sorry, but this is unacceptable. We really cannot have a justice system that punishes people, guilty or not guilty, without them knowing what the case is, what the charge is, or why it has been held up for so long. The police really do have to come to some conclusion rapidly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, that may very well be the case in the majority of investigations. I cannot comment on the specifics of this one, not least because I do not know the specifics of this one. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do so. However, I will agree that, obviously, in general, investigations should be as speedy as possible.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there should be some maximum timeframe on this because, otherwise, it could go on for ever—and it looks like it is going to. Surely, there should be some point at which you know, at least, whether there is going to be further action taken against you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not agree with that. It depends very much on the complexity of the individual investigation. As I have said, the Merseyside police have confirmed that they intend to conclude it as expeditiously as possible. Beyond that, I can go no further.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fitting that we are discussing police conduct today, 35 years, almost to the hour, since the Hillsborough disaster that killed 97 people. Today, the Labour Party has confirmed that it would introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure public authority accountability. Does the Minister agree that there is much more that we can do to achieve justice for those killed and to ensure that such a disaster never happens again?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in honouring those who died, of course; 35 years have passed since the tragedy and the impact continues to be devastating for many. The families have my sympathy. The families of the 97 have shown tremendous courage and determination and obviously their loved ones will not be forgotten. In his Statement to the other place on 6 December, the Lord Chancellor committed to a debate later this year on the Government’s response to the Bishop Jones report. It would be unwise of me to pre-empt that debate, so I shall say no more at this point.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s repeated remarks, do I understand that he is saying that the Government have no role in influencing the police in their inquiries?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes—and nor should they.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, while it is true that the Government should not be able to direct the police in inquiries such as this, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, the amount of time that this man and his family have been under suspicion and under investigation, with rumours floating about, is not fair on any individual person, let alone a person who seeks to represent his community in high office, be it locally or nationally. We have seen far too many cases of inquiries—whether involving parliamentarians or local government officials—going on for far too long. The Government ought to have a look at this to see if something should not be done to put it right.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely hear what my noble friend has to say on the subject and I will, of course, take that comment back to the department.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the fact that he cannot comment on an individual case or its complexity, it does a disservice to the police service to be seen to be taking quite so long over this case?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I would prefer not to pass judgment on the quality of the investigation that the Merseyside police have done, as the noble Baroness is asking me to do. I really do not know what the complexity of this case is. I do not know why it has taken so long to resolve. I would assume that there are very strong operational reasons, given the obviously high-profile nature of the people involved.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

May I ask my noble friend about a case on which he can comment? It is that of a public figure: Ted Heath. I can sense—although I cannot see—him gritting his teeth even as I raise that name. The only reason Ted Heath was accused, with the most vicious accusations, is that he was a public figure, and a vulnerable public figure. He died years ago. Surely, this is a matter of public service that we should be doing in this House, and my noble friend would become a local hero in this House if he simply went away and told the Home Office that this would be settled once and for all and that, at last, Ted Heath’s name could be cleared.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, I hear what my noble friend has to say. He has heard what I have had to say on this subject on at least 20 occasions and, no doubt, I will be called back to the Dispatch Box to say it all again. As I said last time, I have gone back to the Home Office and we are looking into ways of perhaps answering the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who is proud to have been brought up, and to have gone to school, in Toxteth, and who has a huge amount of respect for Joe Anderson and all that he achieved when he was mayor. Having listened to the various comments made on all sides of this House, I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that we should ask: is there not a better way in which we can handle situations such as this? Citing the various examples that he has heard, could he perhaps give us the opportunity of coming back when he has reflected with his colleagues in the Home Office on the points that have been raised?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that and I will of course reflect on the points that have been made. However, as I said in my earlier answer, it would be inappropriate for government to interfere with the organisational matters of the police.

Asylum Claims

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many asylum claims are currently waiting to be determined.

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

My Lords, at the end of December 2023, there were 95,252 cases in the asylum system, 28% fewer than at the end of December 2022. Claims lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023, when the Illegal Migration Bill was introduced, are being prioritised now that the legacy backlog has been cleared. We continue to review and improve processes to accelerate decision-making while maintaining the integrity of the system.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, when do the Government expect to process the claims of the 55,000 or more people who arrived since March 2023, especially the 22,000 or so who arrived between March 2023 and July 2023, who are not covered by the possibility of being sent to Rwanda?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, those who arrive illegally and fall into scope of the Act will be banned from obtaining any form of lawful immigration status in the UK. So, since 7 March 2023, anyone who has arrived illegally may be unable to obtain settlement or citizenship or re-enter the UK using a lawful migration route. As we bring more of the powers of the Act into force, those who have arrived illegally will also be unable to obtain any form of temporary permission to stay in the UK, other than in very limited circumstances.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, in considering measures for sustainably managing waiting times for asylum claims, does my noble friend agree that a balanced approach, which effectively deters economic migrants while prioritising the timely processing of genuine asylum seekers, is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. On the subject of productivity and the processing of claims, the decision output has increased significantly over the past 24 months. In fact, it has more than tripled as we have worked to deliver commitments to process the legacy backlog. For example, in November 2023, the average per decision-maker was about 7.89 initial decisions. The year before, that number was more like 2.6—so efficiency is very much improving.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, how many of those already denied asylum are still in the country?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot answer that question in its entirety, but I can say that the number of complex legacy cases that remain has declined from about 4,500 to 3,900. Some of those are still in the country, but I do not know precisely how many.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Oxford criminology department’s report, The Criminalisation of People Arriving to the UK on “Small Boats”, has said:

“There is no evidence that these prosecutions will have the ‘deterrent’ effect … Rather than minimising harm to people crossing the Channel, this report has highlighted the significant human impact of the current prosecution strategy”.


Will the Government review this report in light of what is happening at the moment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, I will certainly commit to read it, but I wonder how on earth it can arrive at a conclusion that they will have no deterrent effect. The Bill has not been operationalised or indeed passed yet.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know about the concern expressed last week from all quarters of your Lordships’ House about the position of Afghans who had supported our servicemen or translators while they did honourable duty in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence said it was going to review their cases. Can the Minister give us any idea how long it is going to take for those to be resolved?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that his question is best directed to the MoD, but he will know that it is also an ongoing discussion we are still having in the context of the Bill.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on returns agreements with safe countries? In particular, I am thinking of Egypt, as well as other safe Middle Eastern countries.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I suspect it is not a particularly binary answer. Obviously, some of the cases we are looking at will involve people from Afghanistan, as the noble Lord will be aware, and we probably had rather more involvement in that particular situation than the French did. I would imagine it depends very much on the circumstances before the courts, but I cannot really answer the question.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister claims some credit for starting to deal with the backlog. What have the Government been doing for 13 years to make that backlog?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister does not claim any credit at all for removing the backlog, but I applaud the department for having done so. The situation, as the noble Lord will be aware, has changed very dramatically in the world over the last 13 years.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the sacked chief inspector has expressed concern that clearing the legacy backlog at all costs has led to perverse outcomes. This includes a soaring in the number of claims deemed to have been withdrawn but counted as outcomes without proper quality assurance, which he declared was not acceptable. Will the Government now publish data showing the reasons for this big increase in the number of claims deemed to be withdrawn, as called for by the British Red Cross?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I remind the House that the previous inspector was let go because he broke the terms of his contract, so I would argue that he has been somewhat discredited. Withdrawals can happen for a number of reasons, for example where somebody has already left the UK before their claim was concluded or where they fail to comply with the asylum process. There is a large number of reasons why withdrawals are made.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, India was recently designated a safe country, along with Georgia, Albania and other countries. How many claims have been processed for India and what was the reason for designating India as a safe country?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

We debated that at some length last week and I will not go over the reasons again. I am afraid that I do not have those statistics.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, how many of these asylum seekers are children and what happens to them if their claims fail?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there were 3,412 asylum applications from unaccompanied children in the year ending December 2023. That was 41% fewer than in 2022. They make up about 5% of total asylum applications. Of those, 2,446 were aged 16 or 17. Noble Lords will be aware that there are commitments in the Bill going through the House, and in the treaty, that unaccompanied asylum seekers will not be removed to Rwanda.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, the National Audit Office published a report on 20 March expressing the view that government plans to relocate asylum seekers from hotels to larger sites are actually proving more expensive than the hotel accommodation. Is this affecting the Government’s long-term strategy for offering safe accommodation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s long-term strategy is a current subject of discussion via various other Bills. We will be closing all our hotels; we will have closed more than 100 by the end of March. Clearly, having hotels occupied by migrants is not optimal, and of course that goes to inform long-term strategic thinking.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

What progress is being made on police co-operation across Europe to target people traffickers, not just at the point of the channel but across the entire continent?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of progress. In March 2023, we signed a deal with France which, as noble Lords will be aware, has more than doubled the number of French personnel deployed across northern France. Most recently, we signed a working agreement with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. This long-term framework will provide the UK with access to new levers and intelligence to make our and the EU’s borders safer and more secure—as well as emphasising a shared commitment to close co-operation to tackle these organised crime gangs.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that possession of identity cards would make the handling of this situation a great deal easier?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has asked that question before—and last time I got myself into a bit of hot water by sort of agreeing with him, so I will not do so again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, a Member on the Benches opposite recently said that Rwanda was safe as long as one did not oppose the Government. Is that the way that this Government are going—so we are all safe as long as we do not oppose them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I point the noble Baroness to Scotland, where of course the Green Party is propping up the SNP Government. Are we safe there?

Asylum Seekers: Rwanda

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the reasons for their new policy of paying failed asylum seekers to travel to Rwanda; how this policy will deliver (1) justice, and (2) deterrence; and how they expect it will work alongside their policy of seeking to forcibly transport illegal migrants to that country.

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

My Lords, voluntary relocations to Rwanda support efforts to remove individuals with no right to be here. This will be offered to failed asylum seekers, those without leave to remain and those who have put in a claim to the UK’s asylum system that was unsuccessful. Once the Bill and the treaty are in place, we will look to enforce the removal of individuals entering illegally, so that their asylum claims can be processed in Rwanda.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly this morning. Can he help me a little with the following logic? As I understand the Government’s own case, in pursuit of deterrence some genuine refugees who have come by irregular routes will be forcibly transported to Rwanda, while failed asylum seekers, including some who have made fraudulent claims, will be given the £3,000 golden goodbye.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, yes. The fact is that people who have paid £5,000 to £10,000 to a murderous criminal gang to get to the UK—let us not forget that they have been sold a lie and will not be able to stay here—are unlikely to be attracted by an offer of £3,000. I do not believe that it will have any effect on the deterrence principle.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister help the House by telling us whether the numbers of migrants who are paid a fee to go to Rwanda will count towards the numbers that Rwanda has agreed to take as compulsory relocations under the Bill’s provisions?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As the scheme has only just begun, I do not know what the numbers are likely to look like in the end. However, as this is governed by a separate agreement, I imagine that the answer is no.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the size of the cohort that he described and to whom the offer will be made? What will the status be of those people when they arrive in Rwanda, given the present position of the Bill, the treaty and everything else? I draw attention to my interest in the register that I am supported by the RAMP.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, this will be offered to individuals with no right to remain. They are visa overstayers and failed asylum seekers, who are offered this option as part of our regular dialogue. It is very hard to say exactly how many people are likely to be offered this, so I cannot answer that question in its entirety. However, this builds on our already widely used voluntary returns scheme, which saw more than 19,000 people accept support to return to their country of origin last year. We have agreed with the Government of Rwanda that individuals who are relocated voluntarily will have the same package of support for up to five years as those who are being discussed under the Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister seen reports this morning in the Times, the Telegraph and other newspapers suggesting that this House has delayed the passage of the Rwanda Bill unnecessarily, resulting in people being exposed to the dangers of the channel? Will he take this opportunity to point out that this House was well prepared to pass the legislation back to the House of Commons for consideration before Easter, that it is no fault of this House that the legislation has been delayed and that this House has just been doing its job by asking the Commons to think again and is not responsible for delaying the legislation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to reassure my noble friend that I have seen those reports and that I passed that very message back before those newspapers published their reports.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, if Rwanda is a safe country, can we have an explanation of why we are taking Rwandan refugees here in Britain?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have discussed that many times from the Dispatch Box. The fact is that we take refugees from many countries, some of which are safe.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, if I understood the Minister earlier, did he mean to tell the House that this arrangement with Rwanda—for people to go there with £3,000—is not covered by the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership agreement, and that there is another agreement of some description with Rwanda, the details of which have not been shared with Parliament? When will Parliament see that agreement?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, this is separate from the Bill and the treaty. I cannot answer the question, as I do not know when Parliament will see the agreement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in the proceedings of the Illegal Migration Bill—now the Act—that was passed last July, the Minister told us that the Act was necessary as a disincentive for people who would cross the channel. The Government have not brought the Act into force yet, eight months after it was passed by Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that those people who have arrived by boat since the passage of the Act until today have been able to claim asylum? How many have been doing so and what are the financial consequences?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the numbers to hand, because the Question that I am answering is of a very different nature. I will have to come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am surprised to hear that there is no budget for this policy, but I am sure that the Minister agrees with the two Ministers who answered Questions this morning about the importance of people being in work. Does he agree with me that many people who come to this country would make a valuable contribution if only they were allowed to work?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree in certain circumstances, but we are talking about failed asylum seekers. These people will be offered the opportunity to work, but in Rwanda.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, is it the Government’s position that there will be a finite number of places and that some of the people who go there voluntarily will take some of those places but that will not have any effect on the deterrence of the Government’s policy?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have also said many times from the Dispatch Box, this scheme and the Rwanda scheme are uncapped, so there is no finite number of places.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister consider his words a little more carefully before he describes people as “failed asylum seekers”, when we have actually refused to consider their asylum requests?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I am afraid that I will not. They are failed asylum seekers, visa overstayers and people who are outside of the current system.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the excellent question from the Minister’s noble friend Lord Forsyth about the attitude of this House towards the Rwanda Bill, will he care to put his ministerial colleague Mr Tomlinson right on remarks that he made on the “Peston” programme last night? He said that the Government lost the seven votes in this House yesterday because of all the votes of the Labour Peers who were whipped into the Lobby by Sir Keir Starmer. Can he point out what the arithmetic is in the relationship between Conservative Peers and Labour Peers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I am afraid that I did not see Minister Tomlinson because—noble Lords may be surprised to know—I was in the bar after yesterday’s efforts. However, I have some other statistics: Labour has voted against tougher measures on illegal migration 118 times and voted to block, delay or weaken our plan to stop the boats 105 times.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2 and 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3A.

3A: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

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

My Lords, we set out in earlier debates, and this was re-emphasised by Members in the other place earlier this week, the fundamental purpose of the Bill: to firmly place with Parliament—rather than with decision-makers in individual cases or with courts reviewing those cases—the decision on whether Rwanda is a safe country to relocate people to. It asserts parliamentary sovereignty on an issue that this Government are committed to tackling: stopping the boats.

Motion B, as well as Amendments 3B and 3C in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, relate to the status of Rwanda as a safe country. Amendment 3B seeks to make Rwanda’s status as a safe country conditional on the treaty arrangements being fully implemented and continuing to be fully implemented.

The UK Government and the Government of Rwanda have agreed, and begun to implement, assurances and commitments to strengthen Rwanda’s asylum system. In advance of agreeing the treaty, we worked with the Government of Rwanda to respond to the findings of the courts by evidencing Rwanda’s existing asylum procedures and practice in standard operating procedures relating to and reflecting the current refugee status determination and appeals process.

The Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. The legislation required for Rwanda to ratify the treaty has now passed through both Chambers of the Rwandan Parliament—as my noble and learned friend mentioned earlier—and is awaiting presidential sign-off. The legislation implementing the new asylum system will be introduced to the Rwandan Parliament soon.

We have of course worked closely with the Government of Rwanda to ensure that there are safeguards in place to be able to continue to assert that Rwanda is safe. The implementation of provisions in the treaty will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, which will ensure that the obligations under the treaty are complied with in practice.

The monitoring committee will report to the joint committee, which is made up of both UK and Rwandan officials. As per Article 15(4c) of the treaty, the monitoring committee will make any recommendations to the joint committee that it sees fit to do.

As set out previously, the monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any shortcomings. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting take place in real time. During the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee in accordance with an agreed action plan to include weekly and bi-weekly reporting as required. Due to the structure of the monitoring committee, the Government cannot support Amendment 3C, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain and lay before Parliament a statement from the monitoring committee that the measures in Article 2 of the treaty had been secured.

The measures within Article 2 include, first, creating a mechanism for the relocation of individuals to Rwanda; secondly, providing a mechanism for an individual’s claim for protection to be determined in Rwanda or for alternative settlement in Rwanda; and, thirdly, providing those relocated to Rwanda with adequate tools to successfully integrate into Rwandan society. The amendment would create an imbalance in the independence and impartiality of the monitoring committee whereby the UK Secretary of State would be required to consult the committee directly. It is the joint committee, comprising both Rwandan and UK officials, that the monitoring committee reports to under the original MoU and under the terms of the treaty.

I remind the House of Rwanda’s track record in providing sanctuary to many refugees and how it has been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability, strong governance, low corruption, and gender equality. In doing so, I refer to the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who on Report quite rightly disagreed with

“the continued assertion underlying this group of amendments that somehow Rwanda as a country is untrustworthy unless every single ‘t’ is crossed and every ‘i’ is dotted”.

My noble friend referred this House to paragraphs 54 and 57 of the Government’s report on Rwanda dated 12 December 2023 and said:

“The Ibrahim Index of African Governance, an independent organisation, rates Rwanda 12th out of 54 African countries. The World Economic Forum Global Gender Gap Report makes Rwanda 12th—the UK, by the way, is 19th. The World Bank scored Rwanda at 16 out of a maximum score of 18 on the quality of its judicial processes. Lastly, the World Justice Project index on the rule of law ranked Rwanda first out of 34 sub-Saharan African countries” .—[Official Report, 4/3/24; col. 1351.]

To conclude, Clause 9(1) of this Bill is clear: the Bill’s provisions come into force on the day on which the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendments in lieu, but they continue to confuse the process for implementing the treaty with what is required for the Bill’s provisions to come into force. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very pleased to say that should the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, wish to test the opinion of the House with respect to Motions B1 and B2, we would be very supportive of them as well. I just say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the change he has made in Motion B1 from “is” to “will be” is a very significant change, and indeed goes to the heart of the problem that this House has considered on many occasions; namely, that the Government’s declaration in the Bill is that Rwanda is safe and in the treaty that it will be safe should the mechanisms contained within the treaty be put in place. I find it incredible that the Government cannot accept what is basically a very simple amendment, which in a sense puts into practice what the Government themselves have accepted.

I will just reinforce to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made, that the Minister in the other place implied that there was something to think about here and that the Government needed to think about how they responded to Amendments 2 and 3—as they were then—that had gone to the other place. That is why it is really important. Again, it goes back to what I said in the initial part of this debate: when the other place just dismisses amendments, it also denies itself the opportunity to properly reflect on a Bill and how it might improve it. This debate that we are having very much proves the point that we need to pass the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Government may wish to adapt part of it to make it more consistent with what they themselves think. None the less, it is a really important amendment. As I say, we would be happy to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, should he choose to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions of noble Lords to this debate. I am grateful in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for the very gracious way he introduced his amendments, as ever.

It is unnecessary, however, to record on the face of the Bill the position the Bill already sets out in Clause 9. This Act comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the UK and Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. It also commits both Governments to deliver against key legal assurances in response to the UK Supreme Court’s conclusions.

I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Lilley and Lord Horam for pointing out, perhaps rather gently, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is placing not much faith in the safeguards that the real-time monitoring committee will offer. We believe that this will be much more effective than any other form of scrutiny. My noble and learned friend went through the monitoring committee’s terms of reference in the last group, and I will not repeat those. I will say that the enhanced monitoring that has been discussed—the enhanced phase—will take place over the first three months on a daily basis. An enhanced phase will ensure that monitoring and reporting take place in real time, so that the independent monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings or failures to comply with the obligations in the treaty and identify areas for improvement, or indeed urgently escalate issues prior to any shortcomings or breaches placing a relocated individual at real risk of harm. That will include reporting to the joint committee co-chairs within 24 hours in emergency or urgent situations. I could go through the various minimum levels of assurance that have been agreed by the monitoring committee, but I fear I would lose the patience of your Lordships.

I have made it crystal clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of all measures within the treaty will be expedited, and I am grateful for all the work that continues to be done by officials in the Government of Rwanda.

Just to conclude, again I agree with my noble friends Lord Lilley and Lord Howard, that the proper parliamentary response to any changes is of course to change the legislation, either by amendment or appeal. On that basis—

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, he will have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, tell us what the Lord Chancellor said about a parliamentary occasion if the monitoring committee was to advise that Rwanda was not safe. Would my noble friend care to tell us what the parliamentary occasion would be?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, no. As I was not party to the comments of the Lord Chancellor, I think it would be very foolish of me to try to second-guess what he may have meant by that comment.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly the Minister, for the careful way in which he replied. There is only one thing I should say, and it is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley: he is absolutely right that there was a list of safe countries in that legislation, and it certainly did not occur to me to question the proposition in that Bill.

But everything depends on the context, and we are dealing here with a Bill that has fenced around with barbed wire every possible occasion, as I said on an earlier occasion, to prevent anybody bringing any kind of court challenge whatever to protect their human rights and other rights in the event of their being faced with being sent to Rwanda. That context transforms the situation entirely from the measure the noble Lord was talking about. That is why, I suggest, it is so important to get the wording of that crucial sentence in Clause 1(2) of the Bill right. It is for that reason that I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 4 and 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.

5A: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary or appropriate to amend the provisions in the Bill that require decision-makers to treat Rwanda as a safe country.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend has already spoken to Motion C, so I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.

6A: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, again, my noble and learned friend has already spoken to Motion D, so I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A. Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to disapply the age assessment provisions of existing legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motions E1, F, G, G1, H and H1.

We have now debated at length the individual provisions in the Bill. Far too many lives have been lost at sea as migrants have chosen to leave the safety of safe third countries, such as France, to make perilous journeys across the channel. It remains the Government’s priority to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys, but this deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. Although I have no doubt these amendments are well intended, they will encourage more and more people to make spurious claims to avoid their relocation to Rwanda, as well as undermine legislation passed by Parliament in recent years.

Amendment 7B relates to Section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, “Decisions relating to a person’s age”, to amend the definition of a relevant authority for that section if a person is to be removed to the Republic of Rwanda. Section 57 applies to decisions on age made by a relevant authority on persons who meet the four conditions under Section 2 of the IMA. Section 57 disapplies the right of appeal for age-assessment decisions made under Section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, prevents a judicial review challenge to a decision on age from suspending removal under the 2023 Act, and provides that the court can grant relief in that judicial review only on the basis that a decision is wrong in law and not because a decision is wrong as a matter of fact. A relevant authority is defined in Section 57(6) as the Secretary of State, an immigration officer, a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 of the 2022 Act and a local authority within the meaning of Part 4 of the 2022 Act.

If somebody is to be removed to Rwanda, this amendment changes the definition of a “relevant authority” in this scenario to mean only a local authority, as defined in the 2022 Act, that has conducted an age assessment under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act—that is, where the local authority has decided that it will conduct an age assessment itself and inform the Home Office of the result. Therefore, this amendment would result in Section 57 applying only to decisions on age made by local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda. The amendment would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, decisions made by the National Age Assessment Board. This would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country.

The purpose of the IMA is to tackle illegal migration and create a scheme whereby anyone arriving illegally in the UK will be promptly removed to their home country, or a safe third country, to have any asylum or human rights claim processed. All cohorts who are removed under the Illegal Migration Act should therefore be treated the same for the purposes of Section 57.

On arrival, where an individual claims to be a child without any documentary evidence and where there is reason to doubt their claimed age, immigration officers are required to make an initial age decision to determine whether the individual should be treated as a child or as an adult. This is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child from being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment, immediately routing them to the correct adult or child process for assessing their asylum or immigration claim.

Current guidance provides that immigration officers may treat that individual as an adult only where that individual has no credible and clear documentary evidence proving their age, and two members of Home Office staff assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that the individual is significantly over 18. This approach to initial decisions on age has been considered by the Supreme Court in the 2021 case of R (on the application of BF (Eritrea) (Respondent) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, UKSC 38, and held to be lawful.

Where that threshold is not met but there remains doubt about the individual’s age, they will be treated as a child and transferred to a local authority for further consideration of their age. This often involves a further, more comprehensive Merton-compliant age assessment, if deemed necessary. This typically involves two qualified social workers undertaking a series of interviews with the young person, and taking into account any other information relevant to their age. The 2022 Act allows local authorities to refer age assessments to designated officials of the Home Office who form the National Age Assessment Board.

The National Age Assessment Board, which launched in March 2023, aims to achieve greater consistency in the quality of age assessments, reduce the incentives for adults to claim to be children, and reduce the financial and administrative burden on local authorities of undertaking assessments. The aim of achieving accurate age assessments is its primary consideration. The board consists of expert social workers whose task is to conduct full Merton-compliant age assessments on referral from a local authority or the Home Office. Local authorities also retain the ability to conduct age assessments themselves. The introduction of the board offers significant improvements to our processes for assessing age. It aims to create a greater consistency in age-assessment practices, improve quality and ensure that ages are correctly recorded for immigration purposes. It will also help to reduce the resource burden on local authorities: where the board conducts an age assessment, it also takes on the legal risk.

The National Age Assessment Board has shown that the social workers working within the Home Office can conduct age assessments to a high standard without political interference, or have their professional integrity as social workers and adherence to social work professional standards inhibited. Every assessment is conducted by two social workers on its own merits and reviewed by a team manager, and achieving accurate age assessment is the primary consideration. As I have set out before, assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Given that unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the IMA and 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.

We consider that these provisions within the IMA are entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system by purporting to be adults.

Between 2016 and September 2023, there were 11,977 asylum cases where age was disputed and subsequently resolved, of which nearly half—5,651 assessments—were found to be adults. We cannot allow this figure to rise, but by disapplying Section 57 of the IMA for removals to Rwanda, we will undoubtedly open up our systems to more abuse, given that adult males account for 75% of small boat arrivals. It is for that reason that the Government cannot support this amendment: it will simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.

Continuing our focus on the Illegal Migration Act, I now turn to Motion F and Lords Amendment 8. This amendment aims to secure a commitment from the Government to set out the process for how we will remove to Rwanda those who meet the four conditions of Section 2 of the Illegal Migration Act—the duty to make arrangements for removal—and who have arrived in the UK since 20 July 2023, the date of Royal Assent of the IMA. Specifically, it requires details on the numbers of asylum seekers impacted and a commitment to publishing a timetable for these removals. The Government cannot accept this amendment. As I have previously set out on Report, it is seeking information normally used only for internal government planning purposes, and this is not something that is normally shared, nor is it appropriate to legislate for such a commitment. We do, however, recognise the importance of having clear and coherent data.

The Home Office routinely publishes data on asylum, enforcement and irregular migration in the quarterly releases—the immigration system statistics quarterly release, and the irregular migration to the UK statistics. This includes information on people arriving irregularly to the UK; volumes and method of entry; information on cases being considered on inadmissibility grounds, including the number of cases who have received a notice of intent and who have been deemed inadmissible; the number of people returned, including breakdowns by destination; and initial decisions on asylum claims. Official statistics published by the Home Office are kept under review in line with the code of practice for statistics, taking into account a number of factors including user needs, as well as quality and availability of data.

This amendment is seeking information normally used for internal government planning only, and this is not something that is often shared, nor is it appropriate to legislate for such a commitment. The Government’s primary objective is ensuring flights can relocate people to Rwanda, and, once commenced, provisions in the Illegal Migration Act will support this objective.

Turning to Motion G, Amendment 9 would in effect prevent any removal to Rwanda for someone who has received a positive reasonable grounds decision in the national referral mechanism, irrespective of whether they had been disqualified from the NRM under the Illegal Migration Act, or, in relation to pre-IMA cases, by a decision in an individual case to make a public order disqualification based on criteria set out in the Nationality and Borders Act. Furthermore, confirmed victims with positive conclusive grounds decisions could not be removed from the UK without consideration of the specified factors and, if any of those factors apply, without the consent of the individual concerned.

The Government cannot accept this amendment for reasons similar to those I set out in relation to Amendment 7. It undermines provisions in existing legislation—the Nationality and Borders Act and the Illegal Migration Act—which introduced the means to disqualify certain individuals from the NRM on grounds of public order before a conclusive ground is considered. The provision in the Illegal Migration Act was intended to deal with the immediate and pressing broader public order risk arising from the exceptional circumstances relating to illegal entry into the UK, including the pressure placed on public services by the large number of illegal entrants and the loss of life caused by illegal and dangerous journeys.

Where someone has entered the UK illegally and is identified as a potential victim of modern slavery, we will ensure they are returned home or to another safe country, away from those who have trafficked them. The UK Government are committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and will continue to do so through the national referral mechanism. However, it is vital that the Government take steps to reduce or remove incentives for individuals to enter the country illegally. These illegal practices pose an exceptional threat to public order, risk lives and place unprecedented pressure on public services. The protections that the NRM provides are open to misuse and could act as an incentive for those making dangerous journeys, particularly in light of other ways of staying in the UK being closed off through the Illegal Migration Act.

The UK has led the world in protecting victims of modern slavery and we will continue to identify and support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers. As I set out on Report, we remain committed to ensuring that where indicators that someone is a victim of modern slavery are identified by first responders, they continue to be referred into the NRM for consideration by the competent authorities. For all cases, steps will be taken to identify whether a person may be a victim of modern slavery. If a person is referred into the NRM, a reasonable grounds decision will be made.

Under the treaty, the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all necessary steps to ensure that these needs are accommodated. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary and would undermine the core purpose of the Bill, which is to create a deterrence—not to create exceptions and loopholes which will lead to further abuse of our immigration systems.

Turning to Motion H, Amendment 10, the Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our Armed Forces overseas, and that is why there are legal routes for them to come to the UK. Having said that, in response to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, subsections (7) to (9) of Section 4 of the Illegal Migration Act, passed by Parliament last year, enable the Secretary of State by regulations to specify categories of persons to whom the duty to remove is not to apply, whether on a temporary or permanent basis.

We want to reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review, announced on 19 February, has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the IMA, and removal under existing immigration legislation, will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. This Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German, and I very much agree with the remarks he made. The Government has got themselves into a right mess with respect to this flagship Bill—partly caused by the fact that they have simply not been listening to the very serious and constructive amendments that noble Lords have tabled to it.

I ask again, because I did not get an answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart: what happened to the Government’s plan to discuss this Bill next Monday in the other place and then bring it back on a further round of ping-pong next Tuesday? What happened to that particular plan? The Government are delaying their own legislation and people keep asking me why they are doing it. I do not know, so I am asking the Minister. Why are the Government delaying it until after Easter, when they could have brought it back next Tuesday? Were the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, asked about it? Did they put their views forward or is it simply something that came out of the blue? I know that government Members were asked to be here next Tuesday and then it was stopped. I do not know the answer and people keep asking me. So, I am asking the Government again: what has happened with this flagship, emergency piece of legislation, such that the Government have delayed it themselves? The only defence they have is to turn around and blame us for blocking it, when we have said all along that we will not block it.

I ask again because I need to know the answer, since Conservative Members keep asking me and I say, “Well, ask your own Front Bench”—mind you, those here will not know the answer either. Somewhere along the line, there is a serious point to be made on why the Government are delaying their own Bill by not providing time next week.

I support the remarks of my noble friend Lady Lister on Motion E1 and her very serious points about age assessment. I welcome the anti-slavery amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her Motion G1. I make no apologies for saying again that I am astonished that Conservative Members of Parliament in the other place, Conservative Peers and others are driving a coach and horses through the Modern Slavery Act, an Act that as a proud Labour Minister I call one of the proudest achievements of a Government who happened to be a Conservative Government. It was flagship legislation that has been copied all over the world, but, in Bill after Bill over the last couple of years, we have seen a gradual erosion of some of the fundamental principles that drive it. I will not repeat the points made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—I should say that I am a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, as mentioned in the register of interests—but I find that incredible. I hope that noble Lords will take account of the further amendment that the noble and learned Baroness has tabled.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his Motion H1. I am incredulous that the Government could not accept his amendment in the other place. I think it astonished not just this side of the House but all sides of the House that, even if they did not accept his amendment, they could not find a way when considering it a few days ago of ensuring that this country met its debt to those people who had fought with us when we needed them to. Many of them have been excluded from that support. That is a stain on our country and should have been resolved as soon as possible. The Government had it within their power to do that last week but, as with the other nine amendments, they turned it down. I simply do not understand that.

I accept the words of the Minister, which he will have said in good faith, that this will be revised, looked at and brought forward in due course, and that regulations and secondary legislation will be used. However, there is absolutely no excuse for the Government of the day not standing up in here—they did not do it in the other place—and saying, “We will honour those who honoured us by ensuring that they are protected, and to do that we will accept Lord Browne’s amendment”. They could have done that today, and it would have meant that we had it in the Bill.

Notwithstanding that the Government clearly will not do that, I hope that noble Lords in vast numbers will support my noble friend’s amendment so that when it goes back to the other place to be considered—whenever that will be—Members there will have the opportunity to honour the debt that we owe to those who fought with us in our time of need in the war in Afghanistan. We owe it to them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who is not in his place, said, in other conflicts to come, when we need support and help, what are we to say to translators, lorry drivers, interpreters and those who are fighting with us? Do we say, “Don’t worry, this country will support you in the aftermath of it?” They will look back at what we have done in Afghanistan and wonder whether we can be true to our word. We should resolve this and support the amendment. I hope that we do so in vast numbers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful once again to noble Lords for their contributions and acknowledge the points that have been made. However, the Government are unable to accept these amendments.

It is worth me starting by again reading into the record Article 3(4) of the treaty for the avoidance of further doubt. It states that:

“The Agreement does not cover unaccompanied children and the United Kingdom confirms that it shall not seek to relocate unaccompanied individuals who are deemed to be under the age of 18. Any unaccompanied individual who, subsequent to relocation, is deemed by a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom to either be under the age of 18 or to be treated temporarily as being under the age of 18, shall be returned to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11 of this Agreement”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, acknowledged, as I have from this Dispatch Box, that assessing age is challenging. That is why the National Age Assessment Board, which I went into in some detail in my opening remarks, was launched in March 2023. I will repeat some of those remarks.

The board was launched to achieve greater consistency in quality of age assessments, to reduce the incentives for adults to claim to be children and to reduce the financial and administrative burden of undertaking assessment on local authorities. The aim of achieving accurate age assessment is its primary consideration. The NAAB consists of expert social workers whose task is to conduct full Merton-compliant age assessments upon referral from a local authority or the Home Office. Local authorities also retain the ability to conduct age assessments. This is not some perfunctory nod in the direction of those who are obviously in a difficult position; it is a very comprehensive age assessment process. Let me make it clear that if an age-disputed individual requires a Merton assessment, they will be relocated to Rwanda only if determined to be an adult after that Merton assessment.

In terms of numbers of people, it was suggested that there were not very many. I will go through those again as well. Between 2016 and September 2023, there were 11,977 asylum cases where age was disputed. Of those, 5,651 were found to be adults. That is over 800 per year. I argue to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it would be a mistake to put those people into a system that is designed for children. I was quite surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord German, suggesting the opposite. Those are the statistics that I recognise.

As I have previously set out, we cannot allow legislation to pass that would enable those who are to be removed to Rwanda to be treated differently from those removed to another country. The purpose of the IMA and this Bill is to ensure that anyone arriving illegally in the UK will be promptly removed to their home country or a safe third country to have any asylum or human rights claims processed. I will of course make sure that the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord Coaker, are carefully scrutinised over the coming weeks. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for being unable to comment on the individual case that she cited.

The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. Rwanda has a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners including the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and other non-government organisations to process and support the asylum seeker and refugee population. By temporarily accommodating some of the most vulnerable refugee populations who have faced trauma, detentions and violence, Rwanda has showcased its willingness and ability to work collaboratively to provide solutions to refugee situations and crises.

We need to focus on getting flights off the ground to Rwanda to create the reality that everyone who enters the UK via a small boat will not be able to stay but will be swiftly removed. This will help us to continue to stop illegal immigrants from taking dangerous journeys across the channel and to save lives at sea.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Can the Minister answer the question that I put to him and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart? What happened to the Government’s plans to do this next week? It was due to go to the other place on Monday and come back here on Tuesday. What happened to those plans and why have they been ditched?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not like my answer, but the scheduling of business is a matter for business managers.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to impose the operational reporting obligations mentioned in the amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to include the modern slavery provisions mentioned in the Amendment as provisions for modern slavery and human trafficking victims are set out in existing legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.

10A: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.

Motion agreed.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Amendment of List of Safe States) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 November 2023 be approved.

Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves these regulations, which were laid before Parliament on 8 November 2023. The regulations seek to add Georgia and India to the list of safe countries of origin at Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as inserted by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, once commenced.

The declaration of inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals has been a long-standing process in the UK, also employed by EU states. Under Section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, the Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a national of an EU member inadmissible unless there are exceptional circumstances which mean that the Secretary of State ought to consider the claim. These provisions reduce pressure on our asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of protection, but EU states are not the only countries that are safe countries.

Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, these provisions will be expanded to include the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from other states considered generally safe. The Section 80AA(1) list of safe countries of origin comprises the EU states as now and adds the other EEA states of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland and Albania. Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 is commenced, asylum and human rights claims from nationals of these countries will be declared inadmissible, unless it is accepted that there are exceptional circumstances that mean a claim ought to be considered in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations mark a step towards the implementation of the few parts of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 that have come into force since it received Royal Assent. The key sections on the duty to detain and remove asylum seekers arriving by small boat, among other provisions, have apparently been accepted as unworkable by the Government, at least for the time being.

The current list of safe countries of origin from which it is expected that, in general, people will not have grounds for asylum in the UK is set out in Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, as amended by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, as was explained by the Minister. Historically, during the time in which the UK was part of the EU, the designation of safe countries of origin applied mostly to other EU and European Economic Area member states. Those countries remain on the list, with the more recent addition of Albania, and with Georgia and India now marking the first significant expansion of that list beyond the EU and the EEA.

We support these changes in principle, notwithstanding a few important questions. It is right that the Government go into some detail about how these changes would work in practice and how Indian and Georgian nationals, who under exceptional circumstances face harm or death, can still seek refuge in our country. The grant rate for Indian asylum seekers has stayed at under 10% in recent years, but for Georgia it has swayed between 15% and 30%. I understand that there are fewer applications from Georgia in numerical terms, but it would be useful to hear from the Minister how those successful applications translate into appropriate cases of exceptional circumstances in the future.

There is little detail on how exceptional circumstances would apply. The example tests for exceptional circumstances set out in the 2002 Act will not apply to India and only one—the ECHR test—will apply to Georgia. The Government have stated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that guidance will be published to caseworkers in due course. Do the Government mean to say that the guidance does not currently exist? How are decisions made now, before that guidance is in place?

As others, including the noble Lord, Lord German, have pointed out, given that the Home Office’s own policy notes on India speak of the existence of serious human rights abuses, including rape, torture and death—and, for Georgia, they note politically motivated prosecutions —it is vital that discretion can be exercised for individuals in those countries in appropriate circumstances.

I hope that the Minister can outline today how this guidance will work, whether it will be in place when these regulations come into force and whether it will be published. Can he also outline what is being done to improve returns rates for both Indian and Georgian nationals? The UK has migration returns agreements with both countries, but the current returns rate of Indian nationals seeking asylum stood at less than 7% in the year to September 2022. Can he outline what the returns rate is so far for Georgia, given that it has been a year since the bilateral returns agreement was signed? Depending on his answer to that question, and given the low rate of Indian national returns, can he outline what the Government are doing to improve returns rates for both countries? Finally, can he say how the introduction of this list impacts outstanding claims? Will it apply simply to new claims, or will it be retrospective? I look forward to his replies.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. These regulations, by themselves, do not introduce a new process or policy. It is not for us to debate today the safe country of origin inadmissibility provisions; those provisions have been a long-standing part of our asylum laws and have been expanded via the Illegal Migration Act 2023. These regulations seek to expand this list further to incorporate Georgia and India as generally safe. I acknowledge that, in considering whether it is appropriate to do so, questions have been asked today about how the list will be used.

The inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims from nationals of safe countries aims to deter abuse of our asylum system from those who would seek to abuse it and do not need to seek protection in the UK. It will reduce pressure on the asylum system and allow us to focus on those most in need of protection. Treating asylum claims from EU nationals in this way is not new: it has been a long-standing process in the UK asylum system that is also employed by EU states. But EU states are not the only countries that are safe countries; therefore, it is right that these provisions have been expanded through the Illegal Migration Act 2023.

Once commenced, Section 59 of the 2023 Act introduces the new Section 80AA(1) safe countries of origin list, so that these provisions would apply not only to EU nationals but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, to those from the other EEA states of Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland and Albania.

For a country to be added to the list of safe countries of origin, it must be assessed as safe as per the criteria set out in the new Section 80AA(3) of the 2002 Act, as inserted by Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act. The test sets out that a country may be added to the list if

“(a) there is in general … no serious risk of persecution”

there for nationals of that country,

“and (b) removal … of nationals of that”

country

“will not in general contravene the United Kingdom’s obligations under the”

European Convention on Human Rights.

We do not draw conclusions on the general safety of a country based on information from single sources or isolated examples. Whether a country is safe for the purposes of inclusion in Section 80AA(1) is an assessment of whether the country in general is considered safe. Our assessments of the situation in the respective countries are set out in the relevant country policy and information notes, which I will come back to in more detail. Those are available on the GOV.UK website and are kept under constant review and updated periodically.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

Is the Minister able to name the human rights organisation that has deemed the countries safe?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not have that information. As I said, all the information we use is published on GOV.UK.

Regarding reporting from single sources, or drawing on isolated examples, these might not consider the situation in context or be reflective of the general situation, which is what we are required to consider. We consider evidence from a wide range of sources and source types, as I have said. We compare and contrast information across those sources to reach a balanced and, we believe, accurate view of the situation.

We recognise, of course, that groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International produce reports that are sometimes critical of human rights records. We also consider what sources are reporting as well as how, when and why they have reported. This assessment and the inclusion of these countries on the list will be regularly monitored and reviewed.

The noble Baroness, Lady D'Souza, asked about the ongoing investigations by Canada and the US into alleged Indian state involvement in various activities. We remain in close touch with our Canadian and US partners about what are very serious allegations. However, I am afraid it would be inappropriate to comment further during the ongoing investigations by their law enforcement authorities.

Even if a country is generally considered safe, it is acknowledged that there could be exceptional circumstances in which it may not be appropriate to return an individual in their particular circumstances. That is why the consideration of exceptional circumstances, incorporated into the safe country of origin inadmissibility provisions, will act as an appropriate safeguard. Where the Secretary of State accepts that there are exceptional circumstances why the person may not be removed to their country of origin in an individual’s particular circumstances, they will not be.

Once Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced, a national of a Section 80AA(1) listed country who is subject to the duty to remove or power to remove would not be removed there if it is accepted that there are exceptional circumstances as to why they cannot be removed there. They will instead be removed to a safe third country. For all other nationals of Section 80AA(1) listed countries, if there are exceptional circumstances why their claim ought to be considered in the UK, it will be.

I will deal with a couple of specific questions in terms of published guidance—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister in mid-flow. The exceptional circumstance rule is absolutely vital to understanding the operation of this statutory instrument. The Act refers only to two forms of exceptional circumstances: EU law or not signing up to the European Convention on Human Rights. Could he run through the Home Office’s view on exceptional circumstances for these two countries? What is expected to be in the operational notes, which he referred to?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I was just about to get to that.

These regulations seeks to add India and Georgia to the list of countries in Section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as I have already said. They are not about the inadmissibility provisions, which already rely on the exceptional circumstances safeguard.

Section 80A already applies to EU nationals. Only when Section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced will the safe country of origin list be actionable in terms of its application to the revised inadmissibility provisions at Section 80A of the 2002 Act and to the removal provisions at Sections 4 and 6 of the Illegal Migration Act.

Section 80A(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 sets out some examples of what may constitute exceptional circumstances in that context. Section 6(5) of the Illegal Migration Act sets out the same examples, but these are not exhaustive, nor do they purport to be. They will not be relevant in some cases. Exceptional circumstances are not defined nor limited in legislation, but will be considered and applied on a case by case basis where appropriate. When we commence and implement the wider Section 59 measures, we will provide updated guidance to assist caseworkers in their consideration of exceptional circumstances and the wider provisions.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me to go into a bit more detail on Georgian asylum applications and grant rates. I am happy to do so. In 2023, there were 1,071 applications—23% fewer than in the year before, but more than four times higher than in 2019. For cases where decisions were made, the grant rate at initial decision was 12%—based on 24 grant decisions out of a total of 205. That was lower than the grant rate of 23% the year before, but higher than the 8% in 2019. Where withdrawals, which numbered 621, were included as part of the decision total, the grant rate was only 3%, compared to 5% the year before and 2% in 2019. The grant rate for Georgians is far below the average grant rate across all asylum claims. We should note that the number of Georgian applications with an outcome in each year before 2023 was low—120 cases in 2022 and 88 in 2019. I apologise for that blizzard of statistics, but I hope it answers noble Lords’ questions.

I hope that I have satisfactorily explained the Government’s position on the inclusion of both Georgia and India in the Section 80AA(1) list of safe countries of origin. I beg to move.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, if I were to ask the House to consider whether the five questions I posed have been answered in sufficient detail, I would probably have a negative answer. It is my view that we have tried to find a rationale for a workable procedure. We do not have the sort of information we would need in order to make a proper judgment. That was what the Select Committee advising this House decided. We were asked to test this out because they did not have the information to do so. I do not think we are much wiser.

It was pretty fundamental for us to know the sources of information on which the Government made their decision. If I were asked what a reasonable, workable system might be, I would say that there are people who could be safely returned. I am in favour of returning those who have no right to be here. Equally, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, there are people who would definitely be in trouble if they were returned. These are not just individuals but groups of people. We would like to understand and know where people who, because of the group they are in, would be unsafe in going back to India and Georgia. This would aid the balance of decision-making. All the time we have talked about it being for the individual to make it clear that they believe they have exceptional circumstances, not for the Government to understand it. The danger is that people get used to what these circumstances are. If, for example, you are a Dalit and know that you are likely to be persecuted, or if you were politically active in Georgia and caused some uproar, you will soon be testing this out as an individual within a group of people. It strikes me as being unhelpful to put all those individuals who are in that circumstance through costly court and other procedures one at a time to make sure that it works.

Guidance was fundamental to the view of the Select Committee that advised us. All we know from this discussion so far is that the guidance is to be updated, but we do not know what it is. I and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked about retrospection. Will this apply to people who have the right to have their case heard, or will it apply only to people who have come in subsequently? We did not get an answer to that question either. I would put it down as an all bar one answer to the queries that we have put so far. We are having this discussion in the Rwanda Bill and these discussions will be ongoing. If this House continues to be without the information upon which we can judge whether the procedure that the Government are adopting is correct, then the Government are in for a bumpy ride for the very few months they may have left to make these decisions.

This is a matter which we will return to and one with unanswered questions. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 8 February, following publication of the department’s response to its consultation on implementing minimum service levels for fire and rescue services. Before we get into the detail, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all those who work in fire and rescue services: for all that they do, I am extremely grateful.

The services provided by fire and rescue authorities are critical to the safety of the public and the protection of property and the environment. It is therefore crucial that the public remain able to access fire and rescue services when they need them. The overarching aim of these regulations is to help ensure that this happens on strike days. Using powers introduced by the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, the regulations will allow fire and rescue authorities to issue work notices to ensure that there is sufficient cover to answer all emergency calls and respond to fire-related emergencies as if strike action was not taking place.

The minimum service level for fire and rescue services includes three core aspects. These are control rooms, emergency incident response and fire safety services. Broadly speaking, the responses to the Government’s consultation, including those from the majority of fire and rescue services, were in favour of a nationally set minimum service level, but with a degree of local flexibility. This is reflected in the provisions set out in the regulations.

For control rooms, the minimum service level makes sure that emergency calls are answered and assessed, and resources dispatched to emergency incidents, as if it were a non-strike day. Decisions on the number of staff required to fulfil these functions will be for individual fire and rescue authorities to take.

For firefighters, we have set the minimum service level at 73% of the appliances—by which I mean fire engines and other fire and rescue service vehicles—that would be available if strike action were not taking place at that time. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine the number of staff required to safely crew and oversee these appliances.

The decision to set this aspect of the minimum service level at 73% is based on detailed modelling, summarised in our consultation response. The modelling calculates the proportion of days over the past five years on which demand exceeded the number of appliances required to meet a minimum service level set at different thresholds. The model identified 73% as the threshold at which every fire and rescue service would have enough appliances available to meet emergency demand on more than 97% of days. In the interests of public safety, we therefore consider 73% the most appropriate point at which to set this aspect of the minimum service level.

Many fire and rescue services also host national resilience assets, which would form an important part of any response to major and significant incidents, such as a major building collapse or a wildfire. It is of the utmost importance that fire and rescue services can maintain these capabilities and keep the public safe. This is why the minimum service level for national resilience assets is set so that they are capable of being deployed as if the strike were not taking place. Like other provisions in the regulations, fire and rescue authorities will consult trade unions and determine the number of staff required to meet this minimum service level.

The third key element of the minimum service level is to provide cover for urgent fire safety issues. Under the regulations, fire and rescue services will be expected to have staff available to rectify any emerging issues that pose an imminent risk to life and so would normally require a same-day response. This could include any significant fire safety issues uncovered at residential or public premises. Individual fire and rescue authorities will be able to determine how much cover will be required for these activities, although we anticipate that the number of urgent fire safety issues emerging on a strike day is likely to be relatively small.

The minimum service level set out in these regulations is designed to balance the ability of workers to take strike action and the need of the public to access essential services. In summary, this is a proportionate step to ensure that public safety is protected on strike days. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, in the debate on the strikes/minimum service legislation and the regulations made under it, the rationale for the right to strike sometimes gets overlooked. I will cite for your Lordships three very short passages, not from Marx and Engels or Sidney and Beatrice Webb but from the highest courts in the United Kingdom and Canada.

First, I cite a case of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords from 1942, Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed v Veitch, in which Lord Wright said:

“Where the rights of labour are concerned the rights of the employer are conditioned by the rights of men to give or withhold their services. The right of workmen to strike is an essential element in the principle of collective bargaining”.


The second authority that I want to put before your Lordships is a case in the Supreme Court of Canada from 2015, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan. In it, the Chief Justice cited an earlier case in the Ontario High Court, with approval, in which it was said that

“freedom of association contains a sanction that can convince an employer to recognize the workers’ representatives and bargain effectively with them. That sanction is the freedom to strike. By the exercise of that freedom the workers, through their union, have the power to convince an employer to recognize the union and to bargain with it … If that sanction is removed the freedom is valueless because there is no effective means to force an employer to recognize the workers’ representatives and bargain with them. When that happens the raison d’être for workers to organize themselves into a union is gone. Thus I think that the removal of the freedom to strike renders the freedom to organize a hollow thing”.

Finally, in a later passage, the Chief Justice said:

“The right to strike is essential to realizing these values and objectives through a collective bargaining process because it permits workers to withdraw their labour in concert when collective bargaining reaches an impasse. Through a strike, workers come together to participate directly in the process of determining their wages, working conditions and the rules that will govern their working lives … The ability to strike thereby allows workers, through collective action, to refuse to work under imposed terms and conditions. This collective action at the moment of impasse is an affirmation of the dignity and autonomy of employees in their working lives”.


As your Lordships well know, collective bargaining operates successfully in the fire service, including in relation to incidents that may occur when strikes are called. Those issues are negotiated, as are terms and conditions and—most recently, of course—pay, but the effect of these regulations will be to remove the right to strike for a large proportion of the staff of the fire and rescue service. For example, as the Minister pointed out, 73% of appliances and crew must be available, as on a non-strike day. In my local fire station, there are three appliances, so the application of the 73% rule means that all three must be present, available and fully crewed on any strike day.

In addition to that, 100% of control room staff must be available, as must 100% of the staff whose job it is to work national resilience assets such as high-volume pumps and, I think, aerial ladder platforms. The effect of these regulations will be to diminish the bargaining power of the fire and rescue service’s workers and union, which will result in worsening terms and conditions and will lead to difficulty in retention and recruitment.

The United Kingdom has ratified ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which protect the right to organise and to bargain collectively. They are two of the five fundamental conventions of the ILO, the importance of which the UK recently reasserted in the trade and co-operation agreement it reached with the European Union when leaving. Under Article 387(2) of that agreement, the obligation on the EU and the UK is as follows:

“A Party shall not weaken or reduce, in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, its labour and social levels of protection below the levels in place at the end of the transition period, including by failing to effectively enforce its law and standards”.


The words

“labour and social levels of protection”

are defined in Article 386 as including the fundamental ILO conventions. Under Article 399(2),

“each Party commits to respecting, promoting and effectively implementing the internationally recognised core labour standards, as defined in the fundamental ILO Conventions”,

which it then summarises.

It is clear that these regulations will lead the United Kingdom to be in breach of its international legal obligations. It is true that the ILO jurisprudence permits a state to adopt minimum service legislation, but that is on one condition, which has a number of aspects. First, the minimum service level must be the subject of negotiation between the social partners; secondly, the fulfilment of that minimum level of service in any particular firm or enterprise must be the subject of negotiations between the unions and the particular employer; and thirdly, in the event of disagreement, there must be an established method of resort to either judicial or arbitral resolution of the failure to agree. That applies in all the countries in western Europe.

There is a fourth element to it. Where workers are deprived of the right to strike, such as, in our case, control-room staff, compensatory measures must be adopted by the state which bars the right to strike. The compensatory measures are that the ability to seek arbitration must be speedy, binding, independent and impartial. None of those conditions is available under these regulations or indeed under the Act itself, so I ask the Minister, how can the UK be said to uphold the rule of law in the face of what is a clear breach? How will the Government explain this discrepancy to the European Union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and join him in paying tribute to all those who work in this area.

As the Minister said, on 8 February this year, the Government published their minimum service levels for fire and rescue services in England. These new laws will restrict the ability of firefighters and emergency control staff to take lawful strike action. We believe that the new laws are unnecessary. The FBU has always negotiated a major incidents agreement with fire employers before national strikes. Last year, collective bargaining between the FBU and fire employers meant that there were no fire strikes. An acceptable pay agreement was reached and endorsed by the firefighters.

The minimum service level regulations state that fire and rescue control rooms must function during industrial action as if it were a non-strike day. All calls have to be answered, assessed and a response mobilised. Requiring the same standards as a non-strike day is in effect a ban on control staff taking industrial action, despite repeated assurances that it is not a strike ban.

The regulations for minimum service levels of firefighting functions dictate that 73% of appliances usually deployable on a non-strike day must be deployable on days when industrial action is taking place. My noble friend Lord Hendy gave the example of his local fire station, which has three appliances, so it is in effect a strike ban on that station. How many firefighters will be forced to work if a work notice is issued? What is to stop chief fire officers abusing the work notice and forcing all firefighters to work? Ministers have failed to explain how work notices will affect retained firefighters since retained firefighters cannot be compelled to work on strike days; I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

The minimum service level regulations state that national resilience assets, such as high-volume pumps, must be capable of being deployed as if the strike were not taking place that day. This is in effect a strike ban for firefighters deployed on national resilience assets. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

Ministers claim that these laws are needed because the Army no longer provides cover. The last time the Army was deployed during fire strikes was in 2003. After the coalition Government attacked firefighters’ pensions between 2010 and 2015, the FBU organised 50 separate firefighter strikes in England. The FBU has always signed a major incident agreement with fire employers before national strikes, with provisions to recall firefighters in the event of a major emergency.

Government guidance makes it clear that the liability for work notices lies with fire authorities. Fire employers in England are rightly unhappy with these regulations. Many will not impose work notices because of the impact on industrial relations. Fire Ministers in Scotland and Northern Ireland have refused to implement these laws. It is unclear how these regulations can or will be applied in operation. It is a risk, both legal and reputational, on fire service employers who choose to issue work notices.

The guidance is clear that it is not statutory and that, ultimately, the courts will interpret the law. This places a risk on employers that is compounded by the additional difficulties that are unique to the fire and rescue service. Failure to comply with these unworkable measures exposes individual firefighters to the risk of the sack, while the FBU could also face financial penalties.

The regulations before us today are an example of the Government’s failed approach to industrial relations. No one wishes to see the public disrupted by industrial action. We all wish to see minimum standards of service in our public services but these regulations will not achieve what the Government want them to. They will poison relations when what is needed is a constructive working agreement between management and unions. The Labour Party opposes attacks on working people’s freedoms. That is why we would repeal the 2023 Act and why we oppose the regulations before us today.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions to this relatively short debate. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the Government believe that these regulations are vital to ensure that there is sufficient cover to respond to fire and rescue-related emergencies on strike days. They will help protect the public and provide people who call 999 with reassurance that firefighters will be able to respond quickly to reduce the risk to life and property. Fires can spread quickly and present a serious threat to life and limb; it is vital that such services are available to the public during strike action. Demand for fire and rescue services fluctuates depending on the season, weather patterns and the time of day. As we saw in the tragic fire at Grenfell, without warning, fire can quickly spread, develop into a major incident and cause an unspeakable tragedy that will devastate a community.

I want to be clear that fire and rescue services perform a critical role in our society. It is only right that they respond to incidents that could pose an immediate risk to the public. I say to all noble Lords that we of course recognise the importance of the ability to strike, which is protected by law. We are striving to maintain a balance between the ability of workers to strike and the rights of the public to access the emergency services when they need them.

The noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, emphasised that we are challenging the right to strike. I stress again that we are not banning the ability to strike. These regulations focus on maintaining fire and rescue services’ capacity to respond to emergency incidents that posed an immediate risk to the public. Fire and rescue services will be able temporarily to suspend more routine duties that they would normally carry out if such action were not taking place.

West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 7 February be approved.

Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 15th Report, 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

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

My Lords, if approved by both Houses, this order will transfer police and crime commissioner—PCC—functions from the West Midlands PCC to the Mayor of the West Midlands. The first mayor to exercise PCC functions in the West Midlands would do so following the next mayoral election, which is scheduled for Thursday 2 May 2024. This maintains the direct democratic accountability for policing and crime in the West Midlands, as the mayor will be elected by the people of the West Midlands on the basis that they are to exercise the functions of the PCC for that area.

The incumbent PCC for the West Midlands will continue to exercise the functions until the end of his elected term of office. The person elected as mayor, from the point of taking office on Tuesday 7 May following the mayoral election, will act as the single, directly elected individual responsible for holding the chief constable and police force to account. The mayor will be accountable to the people of the West Midlands for this responsibility. Their functions would include issuing a police and crime plan; setting the police budget, including the PCC council tax precept requirements; appointing and, if necessary, suspending or dismissing the chief constable; addressing complaints about policing services; providing and commissioning services for victims and vulnerable people; and working in partnership to ensure that the local criminal justice system is efficient and effective.

Part 1 of the Government’s review into the role of PCCs cemented government’s view that bringing public safety functions together under the leadership of a combined authority mayor has the potential to offer wider levers and a more joined-up approach to preventing crime. The Government’s levelling up White Paper, published on 2 February 2022, sets out our aspiration to have combined authority mayors take on the PCC role where feasible. By working in partnership across a range of agencies at local and national level, mayors can ensure that there is a more holistic, unified approach to public safety.

As is required by Section 113 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Home Secretary launched a public consultation on the proposed West Midlands police and crime commissioner functions transfer on 20 December 2023, which ran for six weeks to 31 January. Over 7,000 responses were received to this consultation, and the Home Secretary considered the views gathered when deciding whether to lay this order enabling the transfer of PCC functions to the Mayor of the West Midlands.

It is the Government’s view that incorporating PCC functions into the role of the Mayor of the West Midlands, who is elected to deliver across a range of other functions, will bolster their mandate to bring greater joined-up access across the responsibilities they are accountable for and will help to facilitate a whole-system approach to crime reduction.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

While the Minister is on the consultation, could he conclude it by telling us the number of consultees and the responses that they gave, and can he give us some numerical attachment to that so that we get some idea of how the consultation went?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I can and will do so shortly.

Incorporating the PCC functions into the role of the Mayor of the West Midlands preserves the democratic accountability that underpins the PCC model and at the same time reduces the risk of competing democratic mandates within the West Midlands Combined Authority area, providing greater clarity for the electorate on who is responsible for public service functions in their area.

The exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands is a significant step to realising our ambition for more combined authority mayors to take on PCC functions, as is already the case in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire. It will mean that people in the West Midlands will be served by a mayor who will have a range of functions and levers comparable to those of the mayors of Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and London, and they will be able to hold their mayor to account for this enhanced range of responsibilities.

The Government have also laid a similar order which, if approved by both Houses, would see PCC functions exercised by the Mayor of South Yorkshire, following the rescheduled mayoral election in May.

I turn briefly to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The noble Lord states that the transfer of functions is taking place without the consent of the other relevant local authorities. When PCC functions are transferred to be exercised by an existing combined authority mayor, Section 107F of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 requires the consent of that mayor to enable the making of the order. The Mayor of the West Midlands provided his formal consent to the Home Secretary on 7 February. The consent of any other local leader is not required by statute. This reflects the fact that it is the mayor themselves and not the combined authority or the leaders of the constituent authorities who will exercise the PCC functions, as it is a central tenet of the PCC model that only the individual elected to exercise the PCC functions may do so, whether that individual is a PCC or a mayor.

The noble Lord also states that the functions are being transferred without the consent of the people of the West Midlands through a vote, but the incumbent Mayor of the West Midlands was elected to office by the people of the West Midlands in May 2021. Arguably, this means that the mayor has a clear democratic mandate in the region, and, as indicated, he has consented to this order. Should the House pass this order, it will then be directly in the control of the people of the West Midlands to elect the individual they wish to see exercise the functions of the PCC at the May election. The Government are doing nothing to take that ability away from the electorate with this order; we are simply transferring the exercise of policing governance functions from one directly elected role to another.

Finally, the noble Lord has highlighted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on this order, and specifically its finding that an initial decision was made by the Home Secretary to transfer the functions before a public consultation had been conducted. It is true that the Home Secretary communicated an initial decision to the mayor and the PCC for the West Midlands on 6 December. The Permanent Secretary’s response to the committee’s letter has addressed this concern, but for the benefit of the noble Lord and the House, I will also address it.

At the time of the Home Secretary’s decision, the requirement of Section 113 of the 2009 Act to conduct a public consultation was not known to him. It had not been the Government’s intention for the levelling-up Act to place a new statutory test and a consultation requirement on the power to transfer PCC functions to combined authority mayors. However, as soon as the Home Secretary was made aware of this requirement, he launched the six-week public consultation on the proposed transfer and agreed to retake his decision only after he had given due regard to the responses to the public consultation and he was satisfied that the statutory requirements of Section 113 had been met. The decision to make this order was taken on 6 February and supersedes the decision that was communicated on 6 December.

If noble Lords will bear with me a second, I will try to find the relevant statistics, as asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. I know I have them in my winding-up notes—I will find them in a second.

It is unfortunate that the initial decision was made without knowledge of the statutory requirements, but the appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the decision to make this order was not made until the requirements had been met. I am satisfied that the Home Secretary acted well within the legislation as soon as he became aware of this initial oversight. I call on Members of your Lordships’ House to reject the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance and clarity.

I thank the House for its indulgence; I have found the numbers, with thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. The public consultation ran from 20 December 2023 to 31 January 2024. The Government’s response to the consultation was published when this order was laid before Parliament. The total number of responses received was 7,103—a good deal more than those received by other consultations relating to devolution proposals. Of those responses, 46% agreed with the proposal, 50% disagreed and 4% said that they did not know. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side of the House consistently support directly elected mayors. We also support them having police and crime powers when boundaries make this appropriate. However, it is not a remarkable point to make that we also believe that, first, the Government should act within the rules set out for them and by them; secondly, that local leaders should be brought along with any proposed changes; and, thirdly, that due and democratic processes should be respected and that consultations should be entered into in good faith, with the intention of listening and reporting back to Parliament in a transparent manner.

It is right that the Government explain not only the initial oversight in terms of the statutory duty but the manner in which the consultation took place. I request that the Government outline how they plan to make this right with local leaders in the region to make it clear to everyone where they now stand, and what will happen to regain the confidence of the people of the West Midlands. Will the Minister commit to further consultation? More widely, and with more regulations to come, I ask the Minister to outline how he will ensure that this approach will not be repeated.

Proper devolution demands that the Government work with local communities and bring on widespread support to produce outcomes that are right for their areas. It also demands that government acts effectively across departments when issues cross Whitehall boundaries. How will the Government ensure that this is done in future?

Of course, we will support my noble friend. He gave a devastating speech when he introduced his amendment. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will do my best to address as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

It is worth recognising the support from the Government and the Opposition in the other place for the policy of enabling more directly elected mayors to exercise PCC functions, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just noted. As I outlined in my opening remarks, the exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands will be a significant step forward to realising the Government’s ambitions, as set out in the levelling up White Paper, for more combined authority mayors to take on PCC functions, as is already the case in Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire, and will be the case in York and North Yorkshire from this May. We have also introduced a draft order to achieve this outcome in South Yorkshire.

It is the Government’s view that bringing public safety functions under the leadership of a combined authority mayor, where it is possible to do so, has the potential to offer wider levers and a more joined-up approach to preventing crime. It places the PCC model and functions at the heart of a wider set of responsibilities for improving public services, exercised by an individual who will be directly answerable to the community that will elect them. It not only preserves the democratic accountability that underpins the PCC model but with an expanded role for the mayor comes a higher public profile, increased visibility and a greater ability to bring about local change.

The fundamental aim of the order is to incorporate the PCC model within the role of the mayor, maintaining the core principles of governance and accountability. The Government want to seize the opportunity to bring together in one elected role the responsibility for public safety and local regeneration for the people of the West Midlands.

In areas where there is a PCC and a mayor, both elected separately by the same constituency, it can confuse democratic mandates and create barriers to joined-up delivery across a range of public services for those communities. The statistics the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cited do not take into account local circumstances and, therefore, comparisons have limited utility. None of this means that the West Midlands could not still be safer and have less crime under the new proposed system. Incorporating the PCC functions in the office of mayor creates an opportunity to clarify and enhance the mandate of that elected individual to make a greater impact across a range of public services.

As I set out in my introductory speech, the Home Office ran a public consultation on the proposal to transfer the PCC functions. The purpose of the consultation was to provide the Home Secretary with information to help his decision on whether to proceed with the legislation before us now. While the numbers for and against the transfer were taken into account by the Home Secretary, the most helpful aspect of the consultation, for the purposes of making the decision, was the information provided in the responses. The Home Secretary’s decision was informed, but not bound by, the responses to the consultation. In making his decision, the Home Secretary also had regard to information concerning the statutory tests and duties relevant to his decision. Ultimately, the Home Secretary is satisfied that the making of this order meets the statutory tests required of him. I say to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this was not a referendum. He took note of all the information and made his decision; the information is not binding.

The Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, specifically Section 62, has come up. That amended the consent requirements for the transfer of PCC functions to existing combined authority mayors and, instead of the previously required consent of the mayor, the constituent authorities and the combined authority, only the consent of the existing mayor is required to make an order enabling the transfer of the functions. This was decided by Parliament.

The Government have been clear that the PCC functions may transfer to a mayor only at the point of a mayoral election; this ensures that mayors are elected on the basis that they will be exercising PCC functions, maintaining the democratic principles of the PCC model. If this legislation is approved by both Houses, both the incumbent mayor and the PCC would complete their existing terms of office, and on 2 May the West Midlands electorate will select a mayor on the basis of them exercising PCC functions, providing them with a democratic mandate. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, asserted that Mr Street will be the PCC, and I sincerely hope the noble Lord is right, but he will have to make his case to the electorate and they will determine “who is mates with who”, to quote—I forget who.

It may already be known to this House—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bach, referred to it—that the judicial review launched by the West Midlands Police and Crime Commissioner on the public consultation and subsequent decision to transfer the PCC functions to the mayor was heard by the courts yesterday. Judgment will be reserved until next week, so I cannot prejudice those ongoing proceedings, but the Government strongly defended the claim made by the PCC. We are confident that the public consultation was robust and the Home Secretary’s decision to enable the transfer was lawful.

Regarding the extent to which this transfer upholds democracy, the Government have always been clear that PCC functions can transfer to a mayor only at the point of the mayoral elections, as I have just said. The way this order enables the transfer is no different; the first mayor to exercise the functions will not do so until the May 2024 elections have taken place and they have taken office—I believe on 7 May. The West Midlands electorate still has the ability to decide who they wish to see exercise these PCC functions. The Mayor of the West Midlands will be elected in May on the basis of exercising those.

A number of noble Lords raised concerns that a mayor may—I use the word “may” carefully—appoint a deputy mayor to support them in the exercise of the PCC functions. It was argued that this might be a dilution of the mandate and accountability of the role. At this point, I note that the current PCC has appointed two assistant PCCs. Mayors who exercise PCC functions can appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime, but this is something that PCCs may also do, as I have just said. The ability to appoint a deputy does not shield mayors from scrutiny at the ballot box; the mayor will be held to account for the performance of a deputy they may appoint to support them. Also, not all PCC functions can be delegated to the deputy PCC; by statute, certain key strategic functions, such as the issuing of the police and crime plan, the appointment and suspension of a chief constable, and calculation of a budget requirement, may exercised only by the mayor themself.

All noble Lords noted the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report on this order, and the concerns raised in that report. I know the committee has written to the Policing Minister and the Permanent Secretary to express its concerns. I understand that both the Minister and Permanent Secretary have responded to those letters. The committee raised concerns about what it considered to be the “selective reporting” within the Explanatory Memorandum that accompanies this order, and I know that the Policing Minister has responded to address these concerns directly. But I would like to make it clear that the Explanatory Memorandum did not deliberately withhold information in any sort of attempt to selectively report the responses to the consultation and the views of stakeholders. As is best practice, the documents clearly outline the views raised as part of the consultation process, both in support of the transfer and those that raised concerns. The document also signposts readers to the Government’s response to the consultation, which has been published on GOV.UK. It goes into further detail on the concerns raised by respondents to the consultation and the Government’s response to those concerns.

As regards to the timing of the order, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Sahota, I would like to address those points, particularly in relation to the Gould principle of electoral management, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sahota. Where possible, government aims to ensure that any legislative changes to elections are introduced at least six months in advance of those elections, to give all those involved appropriate notice. In the case of the West Midlands, government was not able to lay the order six months in advance of the May 2024 elections. Every step has been taken to lay as early as possible, and I know officials have been closely engaged with partners in the West Midlands Combined Authority and the office of the PCC throughout the process, to keep them informed as much as possible. I hope noble Lords will support the order, so we can get one step closer to providing clarity to the local area, and enable it to deliver orderly elections in May. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, noted, as long as that is done by 21 March, all is in order.

A question has been raised about why the Home Secretary took the original decision to proceed with the transfer before the statutory requirements were met. As soon as the Home Secretary became aware of the statutory requirements of the 2023 Act, he launched a public consultation and made it clear that he would retake his decision after he had had due regard to the responses and after he had considered whether the making of the order would meet the statutory tests. The order was therefore not laid before Parliament until the Home Secretary was satisfied that the statutory requirements of the 2023 Act had been met. I hope I have dealt with the key points that have been raised. Again, I thank all those who participated. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this lively and interesting debate. I am very conscious of the time. I particularly thank the Minister, who had a difficult case to put and did it with politeness and good humour. I also thank Members of the House who have been present, as well as those who have spoken. I will not reply to the comments as I think the case has been made. I wish to test the opinion of the House.