Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Home Office
Baroness Bryan of Partick Portrait Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on their aim of repealing the Rwanda Act and some of its modifications to the Illegal Migration Act, both of which were despicable pieces of legislation and contributed to the widespread negativity about supporting people who are escaping conflict and other dangers.

If we want a model for how to treat people fleeing war zones, we have it in the way we supported Ukrainian nationals seeking refuge in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion. Ukrainians were able to pass the residence test to receive fast and substantial help, including a temporary leave to remain if they left because of the Russian invasion. They could work here and apply for universal credit if they did not have a job, could not work or were on a low income. Ukrainian refugees were generally presented in a positive light by the media and in Parliament.

What we see here is the humanity that we should expect from a relatively wealthy country giving support to people whose lives are in danger. We offered a safe space to live, where children could go to school and where parents could legitimately work and provide for their families.

To echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the terrible war taking place in Sudan, of course Sudan was, in effect, a British colony, and the divisions it helped to create resulted in decades of on-off war. The UK is an obvious place for Sudanese refugees to turn to because of its colonial history and because English is one of the two national languages. In return, the UK recognises the terrible situation there and that there are genuine grounds for accepting claims for asylum.

Have any special measures been put in place to allow Sudanese in danger to come safely to the UK? No. A hopeful asylum seeker must first be able to arrive in the UK. If they use the standard visitor’s visa, they must apply three months before travel. They cannot apply as an asylum seeker in advance, even if they have family or other support waiting for them. Instead, they will have to find a route to the UK and on arrival expect an interrogation, to be fingerprinted and treated as a potential criminal. I ask the Minister: why are the two cases treated so differently? Are there deserving and undeserving people fleeing war?

For many years now, immigration has been treated as a criminal activity. I was shocked when I attended a Labour Party National Policy Forum some 25 years ago to find that immigration policy was included in the crime and justice section. No one could tell me why that was the case.

Unfortunately, the Bill reinforces the idea that people coming to this country are a threat and a danger rather than part of the centuries of movement of people around the world described so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. Many of our predecessors came here in that way. I accept the need for border controls, but safe routes must be part of those controls. Currently, we only pay lip service to helping even the most vulnerable threatened groups and individuals.

In our attempt to keep people out and deny them safe and legal routes to arrive in the UK, we have helped to create the space for criminals to take over immigration. The appeal for safe routes is a recurring theme in many of the briefings provided by NGOs and campaigners, and in fact in the speeches today. The Safe Routes Coalition briefing paper argues:

“When safe routes are well run and well managed, they can be very effective and reduce dangerous journeys, such as channel crossings”.


The Bill can be strengthened to improve the role that safe routes can play in ensuring that the UK offers controlled and sustainable ways to support refugees fleeing war and persecution.

Amnesty International points out that one of the consequences of not having safe routes is that refugees will continue to endure severe hardship and trauma in their search for safety, even when having family in the UK or other strong connections here.

We must look closely at the Bill with a view to including provision for safe routes, not only because this is fair and humane but to stop the need for genuine asylum seekers having to deal with criminal gangs and put their lives in danger to have access to what we surely all believe is a human right.