Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2024

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for his support and the support of his party. We have covered some ground here and I will do my very best to answer the questions.

Why have we decided to proscribe the Terrogram collective now? I think I explained much of this in my opening remarks but to proscribe an organisation the Home Secretary must believe that it is concerned in terrorism and it is right that any decision to proscribe must be proportionate and necessary. As the House has heard, Terrorgram involves itself in preparing for terrorism through instruction material. It also promotes and encourages terrorism through its publications which contain violent narratives. As proscription is such a powerful counterterrorism tool, cases are scrutinised carefully to ensure that the decisions we take are lawful, consistent and proportionate. Proscription sends such a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling out this activity wherever it is committed, but the evidence has to be very carefully scrutinised and that is, in essence, the reason why it has taken a while to get to this point.

The noble Lord also asked me about what is happening with the counter-extremism strategy and what has replaced the old one. The Government remain very much focused on disrupting the activities and influence of extremists, supporting those who stand up to extremism and stopping people from being drawn into terrorism. We keep our response to extremism under constant review, for the reasons the noble Lord laid out, in particular things such as the CREST research that he referred to. We have to make sure that it is best placed to tackle evolving threats. The Government’s current focus is to use existing mechanisms to analyse, prevent and disrupt the spread of high-harm extremist ideologies that can lead from community division and radicalisation into terrorism, particularly those that radicalise others but deliberately operate below counterterrorism thresholds. Where there is evidence of purposeful actions that are potentially radicalising others into terrorism or violence, proportionate disruptive action will be considered.

The noble Lord made comments on incel and misogyny. We will not tolerate the spread of the harmful ideologies that can lead to these sorts of activities. There is a wide range of offences and powers that can be used to counter the threat from these areas and we are working to maximise their use. Of course, we know, as the noble Lord said, that the extremism landscape is constantly evolving and therefore that we have to continually seek to build and refresh our knowledge of the threat it poses. From 1 April 2023, the Government instructed all police forces in England and Wales to identify any violence against the person, including stalking and harassment, or sexual offences where the crime is deemed to be motivated by a hostility towards the victim’s sex. The implementation of sex-based hostility recording illustrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a better understanding of these abhorrent crimes, and that will obviously assist us in future policy development.

I conclude by again offering my thanks for the House’s consideration of and support for this very important measure. As I have outlined, it is proportionate and necessary in our ongoing effort to tackle terrorism to protect the public and to defend our values. There is no place whatever for the vile ideology espoused by the Terrorgram collective, and we will not stand for it. We will never relent in showing up terrorism for what it is: a poisonous, corrosive force that will always fail. With that, I commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory order. I support the addition of the Terrorgram collective to follow the recent addition of Hizb ut-Tahrir to the proscribed organisation list under this order. This online terror collective, as has been said, supported acts of terrorism in Norway and Slovakia, and incitement in the Baltimore case of attacks on power substations. In common with its immediate predecessor on the list, it seeks to incite violence against Jewish people in the State of Israel, including by supporting Hamas’s attack of 7 October.

Such a proscription therefore has my support, but it prompts a wider question about the Terrorism Act 2000, under which the proscriptions are made. That Act defines terrorism in Section 1, which includes

“the use or threat of action where … the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and … the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious … or ideological cause”.

In subsection (2)(d), it refers to creating

“a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public”

and so on.

Therefore, I have a question for my noble friend the Minister. While proscription outlaws an organisation, it does not address the blatant advocacy on our streets during the pro-Palestine marches—actions of intimidation against the Jewish community in Israel or at home. These, in the words of the 2000 Act, create

“a serious risk to the … safety of the public or a section of the public”,

and are

“designed to influence the government … or to intimidate”.

I urge my noble friend, in the same spirit of this addition to the proscribed list, to reconsider the arrangements for these marches in this context. Surely it is time for His Majesty’s Government to go beyond the standard reply that policing of marches is an operational matter for the police. Does the intimidation and threat to a section of our people—the Jewish minority here and overseas—not require a more direct address by the law, given that policing to date has proved inadequate, in addition to this proscription, which I welcome?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the sentiments behind my noble friend’s questions. I am not sure they are entirely appropriate for this format, but I will just rehash the powers conferred on the Government under the Public Order Act 1986. The Home Secretary does not have the direct power to prohibit a public procession; the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has the power to prohibit public processions under Section 13 of the Act. Before this power can be used, they must reasonably believe that the power to impose conditions under Section 12 of the Act would not be sufficient to prevent serious public disorder, and must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State. I am afraid that those are questions that would be better addressed to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lawlor]

17: Clause 2, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) This Act and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 will have effect in relation to removals to Rwanda notwithstanding—(a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts,(b) the Human Rights Act 1998,(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018,(d) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and(e) international law, including any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.(6) Nothing identified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) may prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023, including the actions or policies of public authorities, in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda. (7) To the extent that any provision or requirement included in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (5) has been given effect to in legislation (including the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004), that legislation does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in relation to the removal of an individual to Rwanda, and shall not prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(8) A person or body to which subsection (9) applies may not have regard to international law, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (11).(9) This subsection applies to —(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when exercising any function related to removing, or considering for removal a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023;(b) a court or tribunal when considering any application or appeal which relates to a decision or purported decision to remove, or to consider the removal of a person to Rwanda under this Act or the Illegal Migration Act 2023.(10) No inference is to be drawn from this section as to whether or not a person or body mentioned in subsection (9) would otherwise have been required to have regard to international law.(11) The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is amended as follows. (12) In section 2, at end insert “except in relation to the removal of a person to Rwanda under the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023”.”

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the aims of the Bill and I hope that it—and they—will succeed, that it will not be challenged and that there will be no further obstacles put in the way of removing people who come to this country illegally and by these dangerous routes.

My Amendment 17 would leave out Clause 2(5) and substitute the text on the Marshalled List. The aim is to tighten the Bill on what may

“prevent or delay the removal to Rwanda of an individual”

under any of the Immigration Acts, the Human Rights Act 1998,

“EU derived law and case law … under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”

and

“any … provision … of domestic law (including … common law), and … international law”

relevant to the aim, so as to limit legal challenges to the Bill. I do not share the views of those who say that the Bill contravenes the rule of law. Their view rests on assumptions about the role of international law, its place within our own system, the creative approach of the Strasbourg court in applying the convention and the tendency now to accord something of a primacy to courts over Parliament.

These assumptions are contested within the legal profession itself. I will refer to one KC, Anthony Speaight, whose paper was published at the weekend by Politeia, of which I am research director. I therefore declare a special interest in the matter. Speaight explains the comparative novelty of the view, which he dates from Lord Bingham’s 2010 book, that the rule of law requires adherence to international law.

I am not a lawyer. I approach the question as a historian of British political and constitutional history. It is a history, by and large—and certainly in the era since the franchise was extended in the 19th century—of the interplay between Executive and Parliament, with the Government accountable through Parliament to the will of the people, even before the extension of the franchise. At the moment, both the Government and Parliament are intent on being accountable on the matter of curbing illegal immigration. But they are prevented by laws and the judiciary that operates them or, as in the case of the Strasbourg court, interprets them in a manner that takes from and does not protect their liberty, on which good law is based—the freely expressed will of the people who are governed.

On immigration, legal and illegal, the people have spoken loud and clear. They want Britain’s borders controlled and the flow of immigration curbed. Parliament has passed the laws to bring such control, but each Bill it brings forward meets a challenge in the courts. Is removal to Rwanda to be stopped not by a recalcitrant authoritarian monarch or an oligarchic, aristocratic, landowning Parliament, as in the past, but by a judiciary acting—I do not doubt in good faith—to give effect to a cocktail of legislation binding this country from an era whose laws are not our own and from times that are not our own?

There are practical limits to what a good Government can achieve. It is recognised, perhaps more clearly by voters than by rulers, that uncontrolled immigration facilitated by the obstacles now put by the courts, often—as in the case of illegal immigration through asylum claims—has consequences for the economy in terms of the budgetary costs. It puts demands that cannot be satisfied on Britain’s domestic arrangements—not just for processing claims but on every manner of the support that the UK’s people have over the centuries shown to those who, for whatever reason, come to make their lives in this country.

If our constitution is to survive the onslaught of legal challenge, the will of Parliament, reflecting the mandate of the voters, must triumph and, with it, the stability, transparency and accountability it has brought to Britain and its people, rather than be challenged on account of international or our own laws.

This country is no outlier. Across the channel, the political systems of western European neighbours are buckling under the political immediacy of uncontrolled immigration, each seeking to exploit or avoid the system to which in law they are bound under EU law, convention law and the mass of internal legislation to which these have given rise. They also have to take account of Schengen.

Take the case of France. Its political system was practically frozen for two years, haggling over an immigration Bill that many see as promising too little, too late. The problems with which it grapples are immense. Constitutional arrangements and stability are under threat at different levels. Departments are pitted against national powers, as in the recent stand-off with some mayors, who refuse to accept and look after unaccompanied minors because they have no ability to do so. At government level, against the ruling of the Strasbourg court, it is voters against the traditional systems of the political parties, the republicans and the socialists.

In this country, we are free to make our own laws. Other noble Lords will speak to their amendments on the same theme. My amendment aims to tighten the Bill and to pre-empt further challenge. As the Minister mentioned earlier, a core principle and aim of the Bill is to prevent further challenge to the workings of ordered, representative and accountable democracy. It aims to promote the aims of the Bill to delay illegal and unsafe crossings and deter the horrid loss of life, such as the death of a little girl of seven in freezing waters in the channel on Sunday night. I therefore beg to move.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak in favour of Amendment 17, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, to which I have added my name. As I said at Second Reading, I support the Bill. I am afraid that the Rwanda policy is a bit of a Heath Robinson arrangement. It shies away from some of the tough decisions needed to solve the problems. But I support the Bill because it is the plan we have, and we must hope it makes a difference.

It can certainly be improved. Most of the amendments discussed today would make it worse rather than better, and less effective rather than more effective. Amendment 17 is one of the few exceptions to that. It aims to provide a more clearly drawn Bill—one that can withstand challenges and fulfil its purpose more effectively, by making clear that no other legal provisions of any kind, whether in domestic or international law, can be used to frustrate the policy.

I do not want to repeat issues that have already been raised in Committee and discussed again at length today, but I will briefly explain why I support this amendment and then make one comment based on my involvement in recent years in the intersection between international and domestic law.

First, it is absolutely clear that this Parliament may legislate against international law, and indeed the Government may act in contravention of international law. As we have already heard, Clause 1(4) makes that clear and nobody is seeking to amend that. It is a long-standing, fundamental element of our constitution. It is not some sort of weird, UK-specific provision; there is good reason for the dualism in our system. First, otherwise Governments could act to create domestic law merely by signing an international treaty and thereby sidestep normal democratic processes. Secondly, it reflects the reality that international treaties are in practice very difficult to adapt to changing conditions because all the parties must agree to changes. It has been suggested by some noble Lords today and in previous debates that that is what should happen and that we should seek to renegotiate the international framework. The refugee convention, for example, has 149 state parties, including such well-known supporters of international law as China, Russia and Iran. Are we going to wait for them all to agree to amend this framework? We are clearly not, but if national Governments accept that they can deal with pressing national challenges only by renegotiating these treaties, they are in effect abandoning their duty to govern their own countries on matters of huge importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 18, and Amendment 20 which I share with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich. I support the starred Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord German.

Amendments 20 and 21 both restore Human Rights Act protection in full for those subject to the Bill pending removal to Rwanda. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord German, does this in even clearer language by not referring internally to last year’s immigration Bill but clearly stating for the lay reader that Human Rights Act protection is restored.

However, Amendment 18 is a revision of the amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. It is a modest revision to address the concerns of some of his noble friends. He is not able to be here this evening. I begin with that one because it is so mild and in keeping with the thrust of the Bill, and it cannot be described as wrecking or disturbing the framework—even of a Bill I object to—in any way.

Noble Lords will know that, in Clause 3, most Human Rights Act protection is removed for these vulnerable people. The one thing that is left is the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility. Contrary, I fear, to some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others, there is no possibility in our arrangements for the Supreme Court to strike down the Bill, were it to become an Act, because that is not the arrangement that we have in the elegant British constitutional compromise of the Human Rights Act and the balance it strikes between the rule of law, which is the bedrock of any democracy, and parliamentary sovereignty.

If an Act is declared incompatible, that declaration has merely moral and persuasive effect, and the Act continues in operation. That is why, with the greatest of respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, was optimistic to the point of being wrong about that. What the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, came up with last time was just the suggestion that, if there were to be a declaration of incompatibility made by a higher court in relation to this legislation, there should be accelerated consideration in Parliament. That is it. I am flabbergasted by the Government’s response, that they would not even have a look at that most modest amendment from their noble friend—a former Immigration Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.

In the noble Lord’s absence, I have retabled the amendment, and it has been tweaked slightly to address some of the points made by his noble friends last time—and I really look forward to hearing what the objection is to that modest suggestion that he made, that, if is there is a declaration, Parliament should have an accelerated timetable, and Ministers should put their arguments to Parliament, not to a court, and Parliament should be given the opportunity to consider what to do next.

As for our amendments to restore Human Rights Act protection, that is another way of trying to restore the protection of the domestic courts. I say to the Government—and here the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has a point—that where they have left us with this Bill, if it passes unamended, is in a situation whereby the only court that will really be seized of these matters and have full jurisdiction over the safety of Rwanda and individual removals, from this country to that country, will be the European Court of Human Rights. Of course, interim measures will be ignorable by a Minister of State, but final orders of the European court will still be an international legal obligation, which is not removed by the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is the one who is telling the truth about the logic of where this Government are heading—really, for walking out of the European Court of Human Rights and walking out of the Council of Europe. We can follow Russia and be the next one out. At least the noble Lord is honest about that position, whereas the Government are trying to have it both ways. They have defenestrated domestic courts and gaslit the Supreme Court, but the only court that will be left for redress in any real terms will be the Strasbourg court. Then the Prime Minister can say, “I told you what I said about foreign courts”, because foreign courts will be all that is left, if that is what we now say about international courts. Goodness me, what terrible politics.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has had enough of international law, really—that is where he is coming from—but how on earth are we going to address in a unilateral way the pressing challenges of the 21st century, facing not just the United Kingdom but the world today, whether it is climate change, war and peace or the challenge of the ungoverned continent that is the internet, AI or robotics? It is just nonsense.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, does not seem to like law, whether it is domestic or international, I hope that she never has need of it and that she is never subject to the kind of abuse of power that sometimes people are subject to, and they need the protection of the courts.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I ask the noble Baroness to be clear about what I proposed and to what I was referring. I was referring to the laws of this country, made by the people of this country, with the support of the people of this country—good laws. Yes, they support international treaty law, when that is in the interests of this country, and other wider interests that arise, whether they are trade treaties or international agreements over other matters. It is wrong to suggest that I am not in favour of law; I am in favour of good law, but not politicised law, as it very often is, by the interpretations of the Strasbourg court of the convention.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification. As I pointed out, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was nodding, the Strasbourg court is unaffected in its final jurisdiction by the Bill—it is our domestic courts that are defenestrated by this government policy.

I look to the noble Baroness’s amendment, which abrogates domestic laws. It refers to

“any provision made by … the Immigration Acts … the Human Rights Act”

and other domestic statute, as well as

“any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law)”—

in case Magna Carta still got a shout-out there—and, of course, international law. The noble Baroness has been pretty comprehensive in her approach to law in the amendment, whether domestic or international.

Of course, the noble Baroness says that it is only bad law that she does not like—but of course we all have our own views about good and bad law. Some of us believe that there should be referees in a democracy that is built on the rule of law, and the rule of law was invoked by the Prime Minister, even in his slightly odd Downing Street declaration on Friday.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

May I clarify that my amendment is designed to promote the aims of the Bill to remove people who come to this country illegally to Rwanda and stop obstructions on that matter?

[Baroness D’Souza (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might add a few words to this debate on the Human Rights Act. I point out that this is the first time that I have spoken in this group. This amendment seeks to return the responsibility of interpreting the law to the courts and specifically underlines the unacceptability of a law on the statute book that is incompatible with domestic law, which of course includes the UK Human Rights Act. Unless and until the courts affirm that the Act conforms with the strictures of the Human Rights Act, it must not have any effect; to do otherwise would be to reject the rule of law, which is one of the pillars of the UK constitution.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, the provisions in the Bill, while novel, are not without precedent. We are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with the convention rights. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister; I am very grateful to him for his courteous and thoughtful reply on my amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. As others have commented, we have had a very refreshing debate, and it has been very spirited too. We all share a commitment to and a respect for the rule of law, but we differ over the interpretation we give to that, and the weight we give to the different parts of our constitutional powers: government, the judiciary and Parliament.

I especially thank my noble friend Lord Frost for reflecting on the continuing tension between laws made in this Parliament on the express wish of the people of this country, which command popular support, and laws made elsewhere, very often originating from different times to apply to different circumstances. I understand that my noble friend the Minister is keen to reject this amendment, but I hope he will reflect further on the aims of this measure: to prevent legal challenge to removing to Rwanda people who come to this country illegally, and to ensure that we operate a deterrence to stop the ghastly tragedies that we see too often in the channel. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Security of Elected Representatives

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes some good points. I would say that the other House is not the vox populi; it is elected to represent its constituents’ concerns, whatever those concerns might be. I take his points about the Whip system. I noticed that that system was enacted speedily and swiftly in circumstances that I suspect he was referring to earlier this week.

With regard to the general election, the ultimate decider of whether or not the messages being delivered on the doorstep are acceptable or appropriate is the electors in those constituencies. It is clear that parties—I would extend this to all parties—have clear rules about what is and is not acceptable, and I am sure they will be enforcing those rules as ruthlessly as necessary.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, but I want to ask for some clarification. The Statement explains the support that the police are giving to ensure that the marchers and demonstrations do not have the appearance, to people going about their daily business, of being intimidatory. Could my noble friend explain more precisely what powers the police have to curtail marches in public places or where people are going about elected office, whether in town halls or in these Houses of Parliament, and whether they will use such powers to stop the very aggressive flag-waving and surrounding of buildings by marchers, which has the appearance to many people of being intimidatory? I note here that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police did not think that flashing or having banners saying “From the river to the sea” was anti-Semitic or intimidatory when the subject was first raised with him some months ago. Do the police have any powers to stop such inflammatory and, to my mind, anti-Semitic slogans being posted publicly or advertised, which are taken as intimidatory? To clarify, I am asking about the very aggressive flag-waving on some occasions of Palestinian flags and the flashing or use of that slogan on public marches.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks some interesting and, if I may say so, slightly difficult questions, because there is an invitation in there to comment on operational policing matters, as she describes, around Parliament and indeed on protests in general. I think the police have sufficient powers. Obviously, those coalesce around intimidation, harassment and intent, but it is a matter for context-specific decisions to be made by the police at the time. They are accountable for those decisions after the facts, but at the time it is difficult to second-guess why or how they did what they did.

With regard to projecting things on buildings, the legality of slogans and so on, I am sure that is one of those matters where we all have our own opinions. The act of projecting light on to a building is not itself illegal in the UK and it is not obviously likely to engage public order offences, but it is possible in principle to do certain things about it. This is a debate that will continue, and I do not think I should go any further on it.

Anti-Semitism in the UK

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, if I make a correct the record, I may have said three-year funding but I should have said two-year funding. If I mis-spoke, I apologise.

On the points that the noble Lord raises, I completely agree. The targeted stuff that he refers to is a particularly pernicious form of anti-Semitism, and I too have seen evidence of it. The police are aware of it, and I hope they will crack down on the perpetrators. The noble Lord is right that it needs a cross-party response, but to some extent he is missing the point: it needs a cross-society response. It is not just us in here; everyone has to get on board with this.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House and I thank the Government for making it.

I too welcome the Community Security Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the reported figures of anti-Semitic incidents being up by 147% last year on the previous year. One such incident, which was reported on 12.55 pm on 7 October, was of a car passing a synagogue in Hertfordshire with a Palestinian flag raised and an occupant inside putting his fist and arm out, shaking his fist in the air towards the synagogue that he was passing. By Monday 9 October other crimes were on the increase. A piece of graffiti was sprayed on a bridge in Golders Green, saying “Free Palestine”. I ask the Minister: what steps have been taken to find the perpetrators of each of the incidents that have been reported and recorded? No perpetrator should go without the sanction of the law.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to the pro-Palestine demonstrations that we see on our streets in this country. In today’s protest outside Parliament, crowds were chanting “Free Palestine” and waving Palestine flags. They were right up to the metal barriers of this Parliament. Does the Minister not consider that if the police do not have the powers under the Public Order Act 1986 to impose conditions, perhaps that Act might be considered so that such conditions could involve moving those crowds across the road, so that they are not intimidating people trying to get into Parliament? Whether those are parliamentarians, members of their teams or people working on the Parliamentary Estate, it is something of an ordeal to have to pass through those crowds. Now I hear that the people working in this Parliament must leave the estate by an exit where they will not encounter these crowds. In another age, they might have been called mobs.

Do the Government not think it a stain on the honour not only of the country but of the way we are conducting our policing for such marches and intimidation to take place? There is a very fine line dividing the words “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” from the slogans we see on the railings at our entries to Parliament of “Free Palestine” and the flag waving. I would like to know whether there are powers to impose conditions of moving them away from these Houses of Parliament, where we applaud free speech and no one should feel intimidated when coming in. What powers are needed?

I am glad about the increased funding but I would like the Minister to think further. Can he say whether, in providing all this money to protect synagogues, we need to do more to protect people going about their normal business when they are interrupted or intimidated by marchers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend asks a number of questions which I am afraid impinge on the operational activities of the police. I am obviously not able to comment on those. On whether we are satisfied that the police are sufficiently aware and have sufficient powers to stop marches and control public protest, we are, and I went into that in some detail earlier. Crowd policing is a very difficult thing to do, for obvious reasons. In some cases, I would absolutely defend the police’s right to carefully gather evidence and consult the experts whom they have available to them before potentially inflaming tensions—this is me dangerously straying into operational areas; I probably should not say even that—because the decisions that the police take have to be context-specific. It is not right for us to second-guess those decisions; the police could of course be challenged on them afterwards if they are found wanting.

We need to be careful when talking about these things, but we are confident that the police have the right powers. I am not aware of any particular incidents today. I did not feel particularly intimidated, although I completely accept that my noble friend might well have done. I am sure all those feelings and thoughts are being taken into account by the House authorities and by other police when they keep us safe.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for introducing this Bill to deter illegal migrants from making the perilous journey across the high seas.

Despite the law being there, it has not been executed because of successful legal challenge and will not deter. It remains a hollow threat. The new Bill responds to this legal challenge and the Supreme Court judgment by ruling out any generic challenge based on debate about the safety of Rwanda. However, the Bill is not without its own problems, some of which have been referred to today. I will raise two.

Will a successful challenge on individual circumstances become the prototype for other challenges of the same sort? Will there be a successful challenge to the Strasbourg court and what will be the response from a Minister of the Crown to an interim remedy? While I am willing to give the Bill a chance, I am concerned that it is not a satisfactory basis on which to ask the UK Parliament to pass a law. I am concerned about an attempt to have it every way, to be within international law yet disapply certain parts so that that the UK somehow avoids its parameters. I urge my noble and learned friend to ask the Government to exclude, clearly and categorically for the purpose of this Bill, the provisions of those international treaties which make it impossible to honour the mandate to the electorate to control the UK’s borders.

The attempt to run with the hare and run with the hounds is bad for politics, bad for the courts and bad for the constitutional arrangements where Parliament makes the law and the courts interpret it. We have a sea border. We have our own Parliament. We have the finest judiciary in the world. It is time to capitalise on these facts. We need to make our law clear and, if need be, clearly exclude those parts of international law which bind this country and replace them with our own law; otherwise, we shall reap the constitutional and political instability faced by many western countries because we seem to be failing to honour the promise that the electorate sees as its priority.

Across Europe, settled Governments are crumbling, political systems have been undermined, constitutional stability and order have been threatened, and voters have lost confidence in the politics of “business as usual”. The EU is now proposing another measure to control illegal migration which involves quotas and fines on countries that do not take their quota and which is not set to come into law for a year. That is no answer; nor do our neighbouring countries consider it sufficient. In Germany, the left coalition seeks control over migration. France finally passed its own immigration law and, within weeks, the constitutional court of that country has challenged parts of it. Denmark is trying its own scheme and in Holland, Geert Wilders was elected because he promises to combat immigration and undermine the stability of the Rutte Government.

The UK Government should clearly and boldly reject those elements of the existing international treaties which make it impossible for them to act against illegal immigration as the electorate wishes. They should aim to return to the initial proposal of the coalition years to introduce their own Bill of Rights, covering these things with the generosity that we have always shown to asylum and protection claims from people in need. Far from making itself an international pariah, the UK would show itself to be a leader, the one country brave enough to face today’s facts and open the way to solving a problem that concerns almost every developed country.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and members of the International Agreements Committee for their report on the UK-Rwanda agreement. As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is a model of clarity, precision and informative analysis, as was the noble and learned Lord’s elegant summary today.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, both brought us through the steps proposed in the treaty and those that are still needed to make Rwanda a safe country. I will not go through all the steps to which they referred, but they concluded that those steps have not been put in place yet, as noble Lords across the House have pointed out, and we do not know whether they will be and how effectively that will be done.

The question that has been put is a fair one: are the guarantees proposed by the Government to be agreed in international law under the treaty, which involve legal and practical steps and reassurances on compliance, sufficient to allow Parliament to judge whether Rwanda is safe? Is saying that something is the case, or committing to measures that may make it so, proof that it is so? I also ask: will it reassure the courts? The committee does not think it should reassure Parliament, and nor in my view is it likely that the courts will judge it so.

On the face of it, the committee’s report, arising as it does from the decision of the Supreme Court and dealing with the Government’s response to that decision, is unanswerable. I sympathise with the courts that interpret the law and with the committee, which, following the Supreme Court judgments, asks whether the treaty will do the job that the Government say it does—that is, to reassure Parliament that Rwanda is safe.

Whether the treaty ultimately succeeds and works will be for the courts to decide, but, if a successful challenge is brought against removal to Rwanda, that answer will be no, for, as long as the UK is bound by the current provisions of international laws relating to asylum and refugees, it will not be able to satisfy the obligations. No country can. Such international treaties protecting the human rights, asylum and refugee claims of people from jurisdictions other than our own seem to command priority over the concerns of people in this country. Moreover, ever more complex arrangements seem to be put in place to promote and safeguard such claims, often at the expense of those voters in this country.

We have been told, including by some noble Lords in this House—and here I refer to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—that, were we to deviate in any way from international law, this would cast doubt on Britain’s standing among other countries party to the law. Well, I do not think we would be out of step with our neighbours. France, Italy and Germany face the same problem. Each of those neighbours is a G7 country and each has seen an explosion in the number of those arriving within their borders to seek asylum. They are generous to asylum seekers—as is Britain, and its people. But Germany, which has taken quite a number of asylum seekers, is, in the words of the left coalition, which I will not repeat in German, full up.

We are living in a make-believe world in which Parliament and the courts seem to be at loggerheads, in practice if not in principle. We claim the centrality of the separation of constitutional powers: many noble Lords have referred to that, and the committee’s report refers to it in paragraph 13. But no longer can I see that the courts, in doing the work they do—which, given the law, they must do—can protect this country from what seems to many people to be arbitrary power. For, whether we like it or not, international laws made, changed, interpreted and imposed, even if under a treaty to which we are a signatory—the consequences of which the majority of people have continued to make clear democratically, through the ballot box and through opinion polling, they do not want—are arbitrary and should not be retained.

I suspect that many noble Lords will warn the Government against proceeding with the Rwanda Bill linked to this treaty. Some will support the second Motion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I will certainly support the first, but not the second. If it does the trick to reassure, first, Parliament and, ultimately, the courts, well and good: but, given the exceptional ability, ingenuity and inventiveness of those engaged in advising asylum claimants, it will not be long before a successful challenge is brought.

Can my noble friend the Minister ask the Government to prepare and publish the necessary measures to prepare for that eventuality and see off the challenge? For, whether we like it or not, and whether the Government like it or not, we are seeing a constitutional crisis in the making, in which the will of the people, through their MPs, to have a say in the laws under which they are governed, the kind of country they live in, the taxes they pay and the opportunities they have, is flouted because their Parliament is powerless. The constitutional protection of the courts—the traditional role of the courts to protect freedoms—appears to them to have been turned on its head. Given its international obligations, the UK cannot control who comes in and who goes out, for that depends not on Parliament nor the will of the people but on what seems to them to be distant law made for a far-off time and a different world.

Legal Migration

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have indicated, we estimate that only around 25% of dependants work when they come to the UK—half of the adult dependants; the other half are children.

I now have a marginally better answer for the right reverend Prelate on the family test. I can confirm that the policy is compliant under the Human Rights Act, which includes respect for family life.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for following up on yesterday’s Statement today. I have three questions.

First, on student visas and the granting of permission to dependants to come to this country, which I understand will be restricted to those on designated research programme courses, does this apply primarily to PhD students in laboratories or in both science and humanities subjects?

Secondly, we have 680,000 international students in this country at the moment. The Statement mentioned the daily life strains that can be put on housing, our health services and education for our children. Will my noble friend consider extending the review that he mentioned to the educational strain on the hard-pressed resources of our universities—with teaching and lecturing commitments and additional administration—of having just less than 700,000 additional students?

My third question is a more constructive one on opportunities for the future. At the moment, a number of our universities have campuses abroad; there is a network of such universities in the UK university overseas campuses network. By the end of 2021, it had on its books 17 universities with 27 campuses abroad. Is there more to be said for putting the undoubted energies of the Government into promoting such campuses abroad? Perhaps, later on in his or her course, a student could come to this country for a special additional course, having gone through the undergraduate system in his or her own country. Will my noble friend consider or pass on those questions?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to confirm that PhD students will still be able to bring dependants. I do not believe that there is any differentiation between science and humanities subjects. I absolutely take my noble friend’s point about hard-pressed universities, particularly in accommodation and the schooling system more generally, which, as we are all well aware, is under significant pressure. My noble friend makes some very good points about campuses abroad and the efforts the Government ought to make to promote them. I will certainly take her comments back and perhaps share them with the Department for Education.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, this fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order we are debating, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate major government policy, play an important role in the simplification of the Home Office’s fee structure, and allow vital decisions to be made to ensure that the migration and borders system is properly funded.

Before I set out in detail the changes proposed in the order, I reiterate that the Government’s aim is to reduce the burden of operating the migration and borders system on the UK taxpayer. The fees set within the parameters of this order are a vital part of the Home Office’s funding settlement. Without the flexibility afforded by the order to adjust fees for all immigration and nationality routes through separate legislation, it is not possible for the Home Office to take a balanced approach to setting fees.

It is therefore vital that the maximum amounts set out in the order allow appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced overall approach, avoiding the potential for increases to fall disproportionately on routes where there is flexibility to adjust fee levels. Noble Lords will be aware of proposals to increase fees across a number of immigration and nationality routes. Those fees can be set only through separate legislation, which will be laid later this year, and not the instrument we are debating today. That separate legislation will be accompanied by the production of a full economic impact assessment.

Turning to the changes we are proposing to the fee maximas, the majority of these have not changed since the previous order was laid in 2016. The changes we propose, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure that the sustainability of the migration and borders system is maintained and that we are able to set fees at a level that recovers the cost of processing an application.

As the Committee will know, the United Kingdom is launching an electronic travel authorisation scheme that will strengthen the security of our border and support our wider ambition for digitising the UK border. This is a familiar concept to the majority of international travellers, with many of our international partners having had similar schemes in place for a number of years. My Written Ministerial Statement on 6 June this year outlined the intention to set a fee of £10 for each application on the initial rollout of the scheme. The order before us provides a power to charge a fee for the scheme and sets the maximum fee that can be set by the Home Office for each application. Although we have announced our intended fee level of £10, that fee cannot be set through this order. We will set the fee formally through the immigration and nationality fees regulations, which, as I said, will be subject to approval by Parliament later this year.

We are continuing to simplify our fee structure by removing fees that have become increasingly redundant as part of the wider transition to digital evidence of immigration status or that are no longer required to support wider policy objectives. We will remove the chargeable function for biometric enrolment for all remaining instances of the £19.20 fee in the regulations, reducing the number of fees that customers are required to pay in relation to an application in respect of biometric enrolment. We are removing the £161 fee charged in country for a transfer of conditions for those with limited leave to remain because this fee is now largely obsolete, with all new customers applying in country now issued with a biometric residence permit or digital status.

We are also removing the fee to amend details on physical documents—such as name, sex marker, nationality and photograph—for those with limited leave to remain. This will bring these customers in line with those issued digital status and those with indefinite leave to remain, who are not charged a fee to make this sort of amendment. Finally, the order provides that we will no longer charge a fee for a like-for-like replacement of a biometric residence permit where that document has expired. This will primarily benefit those with indefinite leave to remain, whose cards have a maximum 10-year validity, with most due to expire in 2024.

The final changes that we are proposing in the order will ensure that it and subsequent fees regulations are aligned with the wider policy changes being made in the migration and borders landscape. Under new arrangements being rolled out as part of broader reforms to the innovator route, contact point meetings—a term defined in the order—will be required between an endorsing body and the individual applicant to assess progress against their business plan. The fee maximum for these meetings is set at £500. The fee for each assessment will be £500 and will be set in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in the next year, ahead of these meetings being chargeable in April 2024.

The current sponsorship system is being reformed, with the existing system of certificates of sponsorship being phased out and replaced with the “sponsor a worker” service. This will happen in stages with a limited beta test in 2024, during which both the certificates of sponsorship and the “sponsor a worker” scheme will operate side by side. The amendment that we are making in this order will facilitate this charge, providing a fee maximum to be set at the same level as the certificate of sponsorship, which is £300.

In closing, the changes that we are proposing through this order are vital to providing enough flexibility to amend fee levels, with the approval of Parliament, to ensure that the system is sustainable. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

May I ask my noble friend the Minister about something to do with the policy background? In discussing the changes for which the order provides, both in function and fee levels under the regulations, my noble friend referred to one of the policy objectives: the overall security of our borders. In discussing security here and elsewhere, the Government have referred to pre-entry checks that will facilitate entry at our borders. My related question is: is there any proposal or plan to have ongoing checks, including checks when a successful applicant leaves the country, given that the proposed electronic travel authorisations will last for up to two years for short visits? If so, what does the Home Office intend to do to operate these?

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I want to raise two main issues with the Minister. He will undoubtedly not be surprised to hear that the first is a process issue; the second will deal with the operation and impact of this SI.

As the Minister knows, he is the Minister responsible for all SIs in the Home Office. I am sure that he will have seen and noted the criticisms and comments expressed in the 44th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of this House, which draws this SI to the special attention of this House, and its findings on the Home Office’s approach to SIs more generally.

I also note the Minister’s remarks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in giving evidence on 11 May. There is much information in that evidence, so I will restrict myself to looking at Explanatory Memorandums and the Minister’s role in all Home Office SIs. The committee’s report states:

“The Home Office’s Explanatory Memorandum (EM) omitted key information about the wider context of the policy changes, something that has been a theme of our comments on recent EMs from the department”.


As this is where the examination of these matters is concerned, would the Minister like to respond to this point?

Secondly on the Minister’s role, I note the judicial analogy he gave in evidence to the committee. The question was being asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is of course a former Supreme Court judge. He asked the Minister,

“do you look at the Explanatory Memorandum before it is sent out, or are you a bit like some Silks who never read the skeleton argument that they will subsequently have to defend?”

The Minister replied:

“I cannot confess that I read every SI that the Home Office lays before Parliament and every Explanatory Memorandum. If there was a really controversial or difficult SI, the expectation is that it would be raised with me as the SI Minister and I would review it”.


The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, then went on to ask:

“Do you then, in that process, go through it, read it and say, ‘Look, this hasn’t got the right disclosure. You ought to be making this point and that point’, a bit like you would as a Silk dealing with your junior?”


To this the Minister replied—and I am sure he remembers this:

“I shall certainly take that away and adopt that as best practice”.


Could the Minister tell us how that best practice is going, having adopted it? There are clearly criticisms in this report and the Committee would like to hear how the Home Office Minister is responding on behalf of the whole Home Office.

I turn to the content of the SI, on which I have three issues to raise. The first is the impact on tourism from the ETA, the second is the impact on universities—I shall cite Cranfield University in particular—and the third is the operations of the common travel area. This SI touches on all three and there are certainly matters that could do with further explanation.

First, on tourism, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, in paragraphs 7 to 10, outlines the range of potential negative economic impacts. Given that the figure the Minister referred to is based on the cost of ETAs and processing them, rather than the impact on the tourism industry, and given the flexing from the difficulty in understanding how many people this will deter from entering the United Kingdom, why has visitor expenditure not been quantified in the documentation that accompanies this SI? I am sure that there are data that outline visitor spend per head in country. Any tourist who comes into this country will be spending money here on hotels, food, visitor attractions and so on. Does the Minister agree that it is possible to quantify the level of expenditure per head? If the reduction is 1% or whatever figure is inherent in the documentation, you could quantify that as a loss to the tourism industry.

--- Later in debate ---

How will it work? I do not understand how that understanding of who will do the checks and what will be checked will work.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I have a point of clarification. What I do not understand, behind the noble Lord’s probing, is that if it is a requirement under law to have an ETA for all visitors coming, for instance, from the Republic of Ireland, if they travel on a ferry, as the noble Lord suggests, over to somewhere else, or indeed if they come to this country—it will not be required for the Republic but it will for Northern Ireland—is it not the law that they must have it? For instance, it is very important for insurance purposes if they are taking a car on the ferry. They must be covered under law and they must have an authorised travel document, as I understand it. So why would this be an issue, given the way that our law works? If you are obliged to do something, it is expected that you will do it.

[Lord German (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness; she has asked the question to which I particularly wanted to know the answer: how do you enforce it? There is no way of knowing whether anyone has any documentation at all. Whether people avoid it deliberately or because they do not know and they are just moving around, at some stage we have to know—and we do not know. It is easy if you are coming in from Europe, because if you are doing so in any other capacity there is definitely a documentation check, but there is no documentation check coming into the United Kingdom and Great Britain. That is the bit I am trying to find out and that is why I have asked the question. I know this is very tricky and that discussion is going on about it, but I just do not understand how enforcement of any sort will—or could—take place.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I had intended to vote against this proposal, but I confess that I am persuaded by the opening speech from the most reverend Primate. It is clearly a useful proposal, and contributions from around the House point to that.

I will make one point. It is a short-term point but I do not apologise for that. We really must not overlook the very serious problems that we now have in the channel. The public are very angry about it, and rightly so. It is extremely difficult to deal with. For all the criticism that is made of the Government, those who may be a future Government understand that it could be difficult for them too. If all that is continuing, there will not be a wider audience for these very important and longer-term considerations.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have made very helpful and interesting points in this debate. Amendment 168A, moved by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, raises an interesting matter of policy, seeking as it does to introduce a new clause to require the Secretary of State to

“prepare a ten-year strategy for tackling refugee crises affecting migration by irregular routes, or the movement of refugees … through collaboration with signatories to the Refugee Convention or any other international agreement on the rights of refugees”.

Although I agree with much of the sentiment behind this worthy aim, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.

The Bill is to deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK. It is not a Bill about international agreements into which the UK may enter in the future, modify or make. It is for the Government of the day to propose a policy, not the unelected Chamber. Measures such as that which we are now debating tend to be part of general manifesto proposals, on which a Government is elected. They therefore have the authority of the people in whose name the Government are formed, and they reflect the democratic wish. Yes, such a policy may indeed become part of a future Government’s manifesto proposals, but I do not believe that it is for this Chamber to bind the current Government in such a way as Amendment 168A proposes.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I will make a few brief remarks. Clearly, the most reverend Primate will push his amendment to a Division, and from the contributions that have been made it seems likely that the House will support him in doing that. None the less, I want to offer a slightly different perspective.

There is much that is compelling and sensible about what the most reverend Primate has argued, and a lot of the points made by others in support of his amendment are worthy of serious consideration. I very much welcome what my noble friend Lord Bourne said about the need for us to revisit these issues, which have been in place since the 1950s. However, the wholesale approach to this question proposed by way of this amendment requires confidence from everybody to support our motives in taking that approach. We have to keep in mind that the kind of people who support the Bill and want the priority and exclusive focus now to be on stopping the boats are the kind of people who have lost a lot of confidence in the democratic process and in the institutions of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

Given that the central tenet of this legislation is removing people and given that no third country currently exists, the Government should have a plan, and we need to know what it is. In the absence of a plan beyond Rwanda, we urge the Government to delay the commencement of the legislation until the appeal announced by the Prime Minister to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal’s decision has been concluded.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the amendments in this group that seek to defer the start date for deportation, including to Rwanda, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeal judgment. My understanding—I stress I am not a lawyer —is that the Court of Appeal found that in principle the removal of people who enter the country illegally to a safe country is lawful, that the Government can designate countries as safe and that the processes for determining eligibility are fair.

However, I want to comment on a matter of principle that is at stake here. The courts interpret the laws of this country but do not make them. Parliament is the legislature, and constitutionally it legislates on laws proposed by the Government on the authority of the people who elect them. It is for this Chamber to scrutinise such laws. International agreements, by contrast, are freely entered into for a variety of reasons. The Government reach an agreement and, given national interests, can renegotiate or otherwise, as judged best. That is the prerogative of a sovereign power. In so far as national interests may clash with international conventions, it will be for the Government to establish the law and for the courts to uphold it.

As a scrutinising and revising Chamber, we should not stand in the way of the Government by deciding that we should await a court decision to decide the law. In our nearest neighbour, France—historically, the most similar country politically and constitutionally to this one—a telling debate has developed about the dangers posed to democracy by the courts obstructing the democratic will on matters particularly of asylum and repatriation. That debate is one that I hope we in this Chamber will not prompt on this side of the channel. I hope the Minister will reject this amendment, which would put the operation of the Bill in the hands of the courts, not Parliament and the elected Chamber.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, our approach to the Bill has always been to respect the fact that the other place has a right to have its legislation passed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned, we have a right to revise, scrutinise and pass amendments seeking to improve or change aspects of the Bill. It is my view and that of His Majesty’s Opposition that this Chamber has done its job—not blocking the Bill, however much we oppose it, but improving it. Numerous improved protections and safeguards have been passed, with requirements to uphold traditional judicial oversight and conform to domestic and international laws. In pursuing this, the proper constitutional function of the Lords, I ask of the other place only that sufficient time is given to allow proper scrutiny and thought to be given to our proposals.

In this context, we cannot support Amendment 168AB and the other amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. Of course, we understand the motivation and agree with him about Rwanda and his other points, but it appears that the amendment would block, or at the very least significantly delay, the Bill. In the context of what I have said on a number of occasions, and of what my noble friend Lord Ponsonby has said from the Dispatch Box, we do not support that approach.

My Amendment 168BAA says that Schedule 1 cannot come into force for a country not found to be safe until a decision has been overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court. In other words, I ask the Government to confirm that there is no legislative mechanism that they can or will use to avoid or bypass the judgment of the Court of Appeal and deport people to Rwanda before the Supreme Court makes its decision. I am looking for the Minister to confirm the Government’s approach with respect to this, so that we have it on the record.

The Government may say that this is all unnecessary, and many of us thought that to be the case. However, in the media over the weekend, there were reports that the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has urged the current Prime Minister to fast-track the implementation of the Rwanda migrant policy by changing the law to designate it a safe country. He said that the Government should use their majority in Parliament to use provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act that would allow them to designate countries as safe. Were the Government to adopt that recommendation from the former Prime Minister, the implications would be clear. Can the Minister categorically rule that out? Presumably, were this to be done, it could be done by secondary legislation—the Minister will be aware of the debate about this on another matter.

Subject to such assurances, I will not press my amendment to a vote—but it would be helpful for the Minister to outline, alongside this, what happens if the government appeal to the Supreme Court fails. Why would this not throw the Government’s policy off course? Do the Government have a plan B, or are they simply ploughing on, in the expectation of a successful appeal? Given the dependence of the Illegal Migration Bill on detention and then deportation, and given the importance of Rwanda to the Government’s policy, it would be interesting to hear what, if anything, the Government plan for that.

Even today, we read that the Border Force’s own forecasts suggest that the boats pledge will fail. As we have said on numerous occasions, we all want to see this challenge met and dealt with—but efficiently and effectively, in a way that is consistent with our domestic and international laws and requirements.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support most strongly the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the other powerful comments already made from the Conservative Benches, the Bishops’ Benches and elsewhere.

My amendments propose that Clauses 15 and 16 should left out of the Bill in their entirety. These clauses, for the first time, provide the legal power for a central government department to take responsibility for extremely vulnerable unaccompanied children and to provide so-called care, protection and support, both while they are children and as adult care leavers.

I understand that the Home Office has recently been housing unaccompanied children in hotels, without the legal authority to do so. But, according to the Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick MP, no unaccompanied young people are currently in hotels. The Home Office has recently reopened a hotel in Eastbourne, and another in Brighton and Hove, in anticipation of the Bill becoming law. The local authority in the second case is threatening legal action, and I anticipate that it will be successful.

Ofsted has described the housing of unaccompanied children in hotels as utterly unacceptable. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child called for the urgent repeal of the provision in the Illegal Migration Bill, describing this practice as violating children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the refugee convention 1951. Seven organisations responsible for protecting children have written to us, arguing that they consider Clauses 15 and 16 to be such a danger to unaccompanied children, and to our child welfare system, that they must be removed from the Bill altogether. The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services makes the point that unaccompanied children seeking asylum are fleeing desperate situations; they are extremely vulnerable and should not be placed in hotels, where they are open to further exploitations and abuse.

Clauses 15 and 16 are ill conceived and discriminatory in principle. They give the Home Secretary wide powers to house unaccompanied children of any age in any type of accommodation for any length of time—housing a one year-old or 18 month-old in great big ex-Army barracks, or whatever. The clauses direct that a local authority stops looking after an individual child irrespective, it appears, of the child’s needs, characteristics, experiences and legal status. They legitimate and potentially make lawful arrangements that hundreds of non-governmental organisations have contended are unlawful for nearly two years.

I know that Amendments 87 and 89 might help a little. However, bearing in mind the powerful comments from his own Bench from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and from other parts of this House, I appeal to the Minister to seek within himself his humanity and to withdraw Clauses 15 and 16 from the Bill.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I do not support Amendment 87. It would undermine the purpose of the measure to prevent and deter illegal and unsafe routes. It would require that all children who enter this country, and are subject to Section 3, be afforded the same rights as afforded to children under the Children Act 1989, as noble Lords have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. That Act includes that the child’s wishes and best interests are taken into account. However, that could undermine Clause 3, which gives the Secretary of State discretionary powers to remove unaccompanied children who enter illegally, albeit with exceptions. Clause 3 is also concerned with returning children to their parents, and there is provision for that where it is safe to do so.

Moreover, Amendment 87 could and would give families across the world an incentive to try to get their children into this country. For the cost of a modest traffickers’ fee, they would be more likely to make a dreadful gamble to get their children here to be educated, housed, looked after and supported at a cost to our taxpayers. Is there any reason—and I think it is important to ask this question—why taxpayers should be asked to pay sums for those who break the law in this way when there are safe and legal routes for entering this country?

[Noble Lords]

Shame!

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

This amendment would provide an incentive to send children by these very dangerous routes. It is the very opposite of the purpose of the Bill, which is to deter people from using unsafe and illegal routes.

Noble Lords may not like what I say, but I cannot put from my mind the dangers occurring to children and women and even men on these unsafe routes. Only two weeks ago, we heard of the trawler which left the Libyan port of Tobruk and sank off the Greek coast. According to reports, over 700 people were on that boat. The women and children were in the hold: not one of them survived.

It is incumbent on this House to avoid giving any possible incentive to people traffickers to continue their unlawful and fatal trade. Anything we can do to stop it, we should do. This scheme is the first practical scheme that I have heard proposed which will deter people trafficking and the smuggling of children into the country by that route. The impact assessment has shown that the Australian scheme worked as a deterrent. For these reasons, I would prefer a practical scheme which deterred the use of these dangerous routes. Your Lordships should give the Bill a chance if we want to stop these fatal crossings.