Nationality and Borders Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

If the hon. Gentleman describes the people who seek the refuge of those boats—who seek that terrible means to cross—as innocent and vulnerable, why is he supporting a Bill that is going to criminalise them and put them in prison for up to four years?

[Antony Higginbotham]

Because this Bill tells people that there are safe and legal ways to get to the United Kingdom, and if they follow those safe and legal ways, then we will provide refuge, but we should not be encouraging people, indirectly, to take those illegal routes that we know cost lives.

We have tried for years to work with France on this issue. We have tried, tried and tried again, and it has not worked. Anyone who says that our asylum system is not broken and does not need fixing must not be seeing the same scenes. They must be oblivious to the thousands of people who have crossed the English channel in dangerous boats this year alone. They certainly are not listening to residents in constituencies like mine, because my residents support a system that works. They support tougher penalties for those who enter the country illegally. The measures in the Bill are tough but rightly so, and they are also simple. The Bill sends a clear message to those in genuine need that we have a safe and legal route into the UK—that people do not need to risk their lives in dangerous small boats. If people need help we are here, but for those who try to game the system and those who think our immigration rules are there to be got around because, somehow, the rules do not apply to them, the penalties are tough. A different approach for those who follow the rules and those who do not—I cannot see how anyone can disagree with that, but somehow, they do.

Some Opposition Members do not seem to have a problem with the last-minute claims lodged to avoid deportation, sometimes in the case of serious criminals. Well, I do have a problem with them, and the new appeals process proposed in the Bill will make a big difference to dealing with those claims. It will allow us to throw out the spurious and deal only with those that are genuine.

It is right, fair and proper that the Home Office plan ahead and consider whether there is a way to look at claims in a safe third country. That would allow us to protect our borders proactively, moving us to a model under which we gave people safe haven while considering their application, then brought them to the shelter of the UK. However, there are two sides to the coin. If illegal entry is one side, the facilitators are the other. Through the Bill, we will empower our Border Force officers directly to intervene in those people-smuggling gangs—gangs that try to find new ways to circumvent the measures that we design here in the House to protect our country and protect our citizens.

Firm but fair rules; secure but compassionate borders; a system that ensures that the people of this country are safe; a system under which we know who is coming to the UK and how they are getting here; and our offer of help and support for those who need them—that is what my constituents want, and that is what the Bill delivers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I say what a particular pleasure it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today?

The great English jurist, Lord Bingham, famously wrote that the rule of law encompassed eight principles. Principle 5 states:

“The law must afford adequate protection of human rights.”

Principle 8 stipulates:

“The State must comply with its obligations in international law”—

as in national law. These principles are widely revered and have gained international respect, yet barely a week goes by when this British Government do not bring to this House a Bill that threatens to breach one or both of those principles. This Bill is yet another such example. It is also another example of the Government breaking their word, given the U-turn on their previous commitment to decrease the use of immigration detention.

If anyone was not following the first stage of this debate yesterday, I would commend to them the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), which set out in a very eloquent and measured way the many problems with this Bill. He described how it seeks, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, to tackle a problem that does not exist and fails to tackle a problem that does exist. My hon. Friend also set out in some detail how, if this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching both our international treaty obligations and our obligations under the European convention on human rights.

[Antony Higginbotham]

The hon. and learned Lady says that this Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist, so what about the illegal crossings in the English channel, involving small boats and dinghies, which are overfilled with people who are risking their lives? Would she say that that is not a problem that we should try to address?

[Joanna Cherry]

When I said that the Bill addresses a problem that does not exist, one of the previous speakers talked of the country being overrun by immigrants. That is simply not the case. As I said in an intervention earlier, yes, I do think—to use the hon. Member’s words—“innocent” and “vulnerable” people crossing the channel with people smugglers is a problem, but I do not think that the solution to that problem is to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people. That is one of the central problems of this Bill. In fact, to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people is potentially in breach of our international legal obligations.

If this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, the UN convention on the law of the sea and the international convention for the safety of life at sea, and we also risk breaching the UN convention on the rights of the child. If this Bill becomes law, we also risk breaching multiple articles of the European convention on human rights, to which this Government assure us they are still committed. In fact, the Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and was most anxious to assure us that the Government are still committed to the European convention on human rights. But there is not much point in being committed to it in name if they bring legislation to the House that threatens to breach it by its terms, as does the introduction of a two-tier system for refugees, which potentially breaches the right to be free from discrimination and enjoyment of one’s human rights.

The changes proposed by the Bill potentially undermine the right to life for those at sea. Changes to the application and appeals process for asylum seekers and provisions regarding credibility, and the weight to be given to evidence, risk breaching the right to a fair trial. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has already raised concerns that decision making by the Home Office in immigration matters is not sufficiently independent or rigorous to ensure that human rights are respected, and the Bill will make that worse.

Why would Scotland want to be part of a Union where decisions like this affecting our international standing and the perception of the state on the world stage are forced through by a Government with such scant regard for human rights and the rule of law? It is not just this Bill. This Bill is one in a succession of Bills that have gone through this House recently which many independent commentators have said threaten to breach our international treaty obligations and also threaten to breach our commitment to human rights under the European convention. In one case, the Government were quite brazen about it. A Minister stood up in the House and said that

“this does break international law”

but only

“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

Would that it were so with this Bill. This Bill will break international law, not in a specific and limited way, but in a number of respects that those with more time have enumerated more eloquently than I can.

This is not the way to do things. It is not right and it is not humane. There are millions of displaced people across the world and millions of refugees. The United Kingdom cannot wash our hands of responsibility for them, particularly when at least some of the reasons for their displacement can be laid at our door and at the door of our foreign policy and our colonial past. The real mischief that the Bill should seek to tackle, but does not, is that there are insufficient lawful routes for claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. Yes, resettlement programmes are laudable, but they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because resettlement programmes deal with those already recognised as having a protection need. Those in need of international protection who reach the shores of the United Kingdom should not be criminalised.

It is time the Home Secretary stopped playing to the gallery and did the hard work necessary to fulfil the United Kingdom’s moral and legal obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said so eloquently, there is no point in Conservative Members waxing lyrical about the rights of persecuted Christians and the rights of the Uyghurs to be free from Chinese atrocities if they threaten to criminalise those sorts of people when they make it to our shores.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making the point very eloquently. So many people who come here through an illegal route, through no fault of their own, are often in a set of circumstances beyond their control. The message that this Government send is, “You are not welcome.” What would she say to those who have made a life here and contributed so much, which they could continue to contribute were it not for this abhorrent policy?

[Joanna Cherry]

What I would say to them, what the Scottish Government have said to them and what my party says to them is that they are very welcome in Scotland, but unfortunately at the moment we do not have control over that aspect of policy. Until we take the steps to ensure that we do have control over that aspect of policy, we are stuck with trying to persuade this British Government that their policies are wrong.

I fear that the chances of this Government amending the Bill in any meaningful way are absolutely zero, but I know that it matters very much to my constituents, other people in Scotland and many organisations—the Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh passed a motion condemning this Bill just in the last few days—that the Scottish National party stands against the Bill. As I say, I do not think that our stand will work, and I continue to look forward to a future where an independent Scotland will be able to set a better example on refugee policy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I am sorry, but I am coming to an end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Alyn Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

My constituents are very happy to welcome genuine refugees to the UK. We are taking them now, unlike many constituencies in Scotland where they are not taking asylum seekers, as was pointed out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). It is quite astonishing really.

My constituents are very happy to take genuine refugees, but they do not want to see an open-door policy, where anybody can just come into the UK and we cannot remove them if they have come here illegally, overstayed their visa or committed a criminal act while they are here, when they should be deported.

If Opposition Members are really interested in ensuring better and safer legal routes for migration, I cannot understand why they are not arguing for that. Why are they not arguing for safer routes? Why are they instead arguing that we should just allow the boats to continue? It seems crazy to me. Totally mad.

As I was saying, people are fed up of seeing people coming to the UK and being used and abused by illegal gangs. They are fed up of seeing them come here illegally. They are also fed up of seeing some lawyers—some lawyers—milking the system. I remember Opposition Members, when I was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, defending Phil Shiner, who was saying that British soldiers out in Iraq were doing all the wrong sorts of things. Spurious allegations were sprayed across honourable members of our armed forces. Today we are seeing exactly the same sorts of lawyers doing exactly the same sorts of things to our immigration and asylum system.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Holden]

No, I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Lady. I have already given way twice.

Far too often we see made-up claims. And then, time after time, they come back with different claims put in different ways. “I was this age at that time, and now I’m a different age. I was claiming under those conditions, and now I’m claiming under these conditions.” It is absolutely mad.

I can understand why Opposition Members, who supported people like Phil Shiner in the past, are now defending exactly the same system today. It is absolutely crazy, and it was at the time. I am glad the Government have moved on from those systems under Phil Shiner and we are going to tackle some of the same issues today.

There are three key elements that are particularly great to see the Government tackling. One is boat interceptions. It is interesting to see that we are learning from international examples. We are learning from the Australian system, where they have had terrible issues over the years with people coming. They do not have people arriving by boat in Australia any more, because they have dealt with the system.

We are also looking at the offshore processing of claims, and it is similar to the Australian system. They do not have the same problems that we do today. They do not see people dying in their channel any more—the channel between Australia and Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

Opposition Members seem to think that this is a price worth paying. I do not think it is. The Government, more than any other Government in Europe, are doing the right thing in supporting legal routes from refugee camps. That is exactly what we need to see here.

Let me turn to immigration offences and enforcement. People are also fed up of seeing those who have come to the UK and been deported coming back again, and it is right that we are enhancing the sentences for such people—not only when they are initially deported, but if they come back again, when the sentences need to be tougher still. How can Opposition Members not support those sensible provisions on illegal migrants who have been deported? Surely constituents, whether they are in Consett or in Glasgow, support those sensible measures. They want a sensible immigration system whereby people come to the UK based not on their ability to get here, but on their need. That is what Conservative Members put forward every time—the need of the people in the refugee camps, not the need of the young men who can just make their way here.

The Bill, in the broader sense, also tackles modern slavery. That is a great step in the right direction on what is a real issue in parts of the country. I remember speaking to some long-standing police officers in my constituency who had dealt historically with cases of trafficked women and the horror that they went through. Often, those people disappeared into the system after being smuggled here illegally, so the Bill is taking a sensible step.

We are including a sensible framework to determine the age of people coming over to this country. We cannot have a system whereby someone can destroy the documentation that proves their age but is then able to claim to be whatever age they wish.

We are also including a good-faith provision. People should act in good faith with the Government when they are determining an application. How can the Opposition oppose good faith? It seems like a really sensible thing to me.

I am delighted to support the Bill on Second Reading. It will deliver exactly what my constituents want—a fair, balanced immigration system.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the things we have been very clear about is that we want to expand community sponsorship in particular, but a number of schemes that are already being delivered are making a considerable difference. We should not forget that 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan over the summer. Nor should we forget that the BNO route in relation to Hong Kong is a valuable and important route that is helping to provide sanctuary to many individuals. That is an ambitious offer that we have made.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Is not the reality that there are people who come to France fleeing their country of origin with the desire to come to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister look at new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor and which puts forward a humanitarian visa scheme to enable people who are in France to start their application process off in France to come to the United Kingdom? We spoke about this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and the Minister said he was going to go away and verify whether that suggestion had ever been put to the French. Has he been able to verify that for me?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. and learned Lady comes to this debate with ideas and suggestions about how we tackle this issue, but I disagree with her in terms of the suggestion she makes. In order to have a system like that in place, the French would have to agree to it. I think it is fair to say that there is considerable concern about the number of movements across France as things stand already. That is where, I am afraid, her suggestion, while offered in a spirit of co-operation and trying to be constructive, falls down.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Tom Pursglove]

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

Amendments 39, 40 to 43, 46 and 47 clarify the Government’s intention that appeals should remain in the expedited appeal process wherever possible. The revised text, which reflects wording in the primary legislation that sets the statutory framework for tribunal rules, specifies that judges should only remove an appeal from the accelerated or expedited process where there is no other way to secure that justice be done.

Amendments 48 to 50 are minor and technical amendments to clause 34 on internal relocation. They clarify the ambiguity in the current drafting that has the potential to be interpreted in an unintended way, where an individual could only be internally relocated within a country where they had previously been in that part of the country.

The purpose of amendments 51 to 59 is to increase the maximum penalty for the existing statutory offence of overstaying, which is currently six months’ imprisonment. That maximum penalty dates back to the original legislation—the Immigration Act 1971—and is no longer considered sufficient for the present day. Given how much the world has changed over the past 50 years, the existing penalty hinders our ability to deter overstayers, and we consider that raising it would encourage better compliance. Clause 39 introduces a new maximum penalty of four years to align with illegal entry and other similar offences that have already been amended during the passage of the Bill.

In Committee, I promised to bring forward amendments to protect Royal National Lifeboat Institution individuals rescuing persons at sea and those in charge of vessels who find stowaways on board. I am pleased to say that this is now set out in amendments 60 to 63. I am grateful to Members across the House who have raised concerns in relation to this matter, and I am delighted to be able to put it beyond doubt this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Rather than fixing the broken asylum system, the provisions in this part of the Bill risk breaking it all together, endangering, criminalising, delaying, warehousing, offshoring and depriving of their rights those who simply seek our protection. The Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian I spoke about on Second Reading, as well as the Afghans who are now in danger because of events subsequent to that debate, all face those bleak impacts despite our best efforts in Committee.

Contrary to the claims that the Bill is about safe routes, it actually does not add a single one, while threatening to restrict vital family reunion rights, pushing more people towards smugglers and dangerous crossings.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his forensic work on the Bill in Committee. He correctly says that the Bill does not propose any new safe legal routes, but there is one provision that does—new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor. It proposes having a humanitarian visa that people could apply for in France so that they could start the process of coming to the United Kingdom there. Can my hon. Friend confirm that SNP MPs will support new clauses 10 and 11?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her intervention, and I am happy to confirm that the SNP will support them. Indeed, there are a range of new clauses from both sides of the House, from Back Benchers in particular, that seek to add safe routes, and they all have our support. For our part, we have tabled new clause 35, which would expand refugee family reunion in a way that this House supported in 2018 in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).

Our other proposals try once more to limit some of the harm that the Bill will do at every stage in the asylum process. However, let me first welcome the amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others regarding the appalling maritime pushback clauses and the criminalisation of rescuers—provisions that risk serious harm even before an asylum seeker is able to enter the asylum process.

For those seeking asylum in the UK who do get here, is it not outrageous that they will be criminalised under an offence in clause 39 punishable by up to four years in prison? That is why our amendment 116 states clearly and simply that if Afghans, Syrians, Uyghurs, Christian converts or others are at risk of persecution in their countries of nationality, their mere entry or arrival for the purposes of seeking asylum is not a crime. Is it not extraordinary that that very idea has to be debated?

Clause 11 means that, having faced the criminal justice system, our Afghan and his colleagues will be stuck in one of the Government’s asylum warehouses. We say that we should not go down that path—a path that the Irish have just rejected as utterly failed and that brought shocking results at Napier Barracks—and that we should make community dispersal work. Our new clause 36 would ensure that dispersal authorities get the funding they need to undertake their vital role.

Clause 15 means that, stuck in that warehouse, the Syrian and his colleagues will have to wait for months on end before their asylum cases are looked at, because their claims will be deemed inadmissible under a ludicrously broad range of criteria that will allow the Home Secretary to say that another country should take responsibility—even if there is not the remotest chance of that actually happening, there is no real reason why it should happen or there are strong reasons, such as family ties, why the claim should actually be considered here. The Home Secretary could even insist that a human rights-abusing country that pays no more than lip service to the refugee convention should take charge, even when our Syrian or Afghan has absolutely no connection to that country whatever.

Amendments 132 to 142, drafted with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, seek to put the necessary safeguards and restrictions in place. We are not saying that it is never appropriate for other countries to be asked to take over responsibility, but crucial safeguards must exist, and they are absolutely nowhere in this Bill. Already this year, 7,000 or so people have had their claims put on hold through inadmissibility procedures. Just 10 were removed. The remaining 6,990 are either still waiting or have been moved into the asylum process. They have been waiting for absolutely no good reason at all and almost certainly at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. The whole set-up is absolutely ludicrous.

Having toughed out the additional delays, the Uyghur and his colleagues will find that it is the Home Office that finally considers their asylum claims, but we ask why. Time and again the Home Office has shown itself as not fit for purpose, which is why new clause 37 asks us to look to the Canadian model of an independent asylum decision-making body, to ensure that protection claims no longer suffer from political interference and politically motivated targets. Sadly, far from supporting independent decision making, a whole series of pernicious clauses in the Bill would see this Parliament telling decision makers what inferences to draw about evidence provided as part of a claim. We say, “Leave assessments of evidence to the decision makers who actually see it. We don’t get to see it.” That is why amendments 118 to 120 seek to remove clauses 18, 21 and 25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I refer my right hon. Friend back to the point that I have already made. We intend to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act and will set out our plans imminently in that regard.

Work is under way to develop a new phase of measures to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are not undermined and that legal processes cannot be instrumentalised to circumvent the will of the British people. As we have said, the Government have imminent plans to consult on reform to the Human Rights Act, which are under consideration as we speak. Likewise, work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law.

[Joanna Cherry]

It sounds like the Minister is announcing something a bit more radical than perhaps we had anticipated in relation to the Human Rights Act. Can he confirm that the Government are still committed to remaining a signatory—a full signatory—to the European convention on human rights?

[Tom Pursglove]

The point that I would make is that the Government will set out their intentions in due course. I think it is right not to pre-empt. It is important to make sure that this House is kept updated as to that work, and we will be very clear in our intentions.