Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Bishop of Durham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. She made her case for transferring this responsibility from the Home Office to the Foreign Office on grounds of efficiency and good administration. In my totally unbiased view, it is of course the case that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a model of efficiency and good administration. But on practical grounds, I really do not agree with this.

There is a Foreign Office role. The role of the treaty section is monitoring, ratification procedures and quality control over the treaties that we sign. There is a role for legal advisers, referred to by the noble Baroness, monitoring the Government’s respect for their treaty obligations and, if necessary, reminding other departments of the obligations that we have taken on.

There could be a role for our posts abroad. I strongly support the proposal in Amendment 130 for the safe passage visa. It would be very good if our posts abroad were allowed, say, to filter out applications that are clearly not unfounded and to assist applicants with the electronic application system. That would be very good, but the trend in the Home Office, which the noble Baroness in my view correctly described, to move more and more to being a department of the interior, with a bit of homeland security, would be increased if responsibility for carrying out our treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers were transferred to another department.

Moreover, the Foreign Office really is not equipped to take on the enhanced teams required to deal with 178,000 applicants in the asylum queue. So, although I understand the noble Baroness’s motives and applaud her praise for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I am against this proposal.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the Minister ought to welcome Amendments 132, 134 and 135, because they simply ask for transparency of reporting back on the success of the Bill. The introduction says:

“The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes”.


Most of the arguments have been around the Government’s conviction that this is the right way to stop the boats. Many of us in this Committee believe that it will not stop the boats, that we will end up with large numbers of people being detained for indefinite periods and that it will cost a huge amount of money.

I quite happily accept that the Minister will probably say that practically these amendments cannot work with one month and might need a different timescale and so on, but they are basically saying, “Please report that this is doing what the Bill set out to do”. Really, I cannot see how the Government can object to being required to report on their own successes.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me that I was unable to speak at Second Reading and will allow me to make a few comments. Since I have returned to the Back Benches, I have tried to focus on a few amendments rather than speaking on everything, so this is my first intervention in this part. I want to speak because I have huge sympathy for Amendment 132 in this group and Amendment 150 in the next group about operational efficiency. In fact, I have submitted Written Questions on the issue of the backlog and what the Government are doing to tackle it, and I thank my noble friend the Minister for answering them. I hope noble Lords will forgive me, because this is the first and only time I will speak at this stage, if I make a few more general comments.

First, I am very concerned about the language we are using and the lack of compassion we are demonstrating. I do not think it right that we condemn people who are either fleeing persecution and torture or even coming to this country as economic migrants. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be an economic migrant. My parents were economic migrants; they came here to seek a better life. I understand all that and I think we should show some sympathy and understanding, but I also think we should be proud that people want to come to the United Kingdom, because we are one of the most open countries in the world and we have, over the years, assimilated many immigrants who have fled persecution or come here for economic reasons, to contribute to this country.

Noble Lords will have often heard me say that we should be grateful to the people from the Commonwealth —my father came in the early 1950s—who saved British public services after the war. If it were not for these immigrants, our public services would be in trouble. On this specific issue, we should be clear that while we are proud that people want to come to the United Kingdom, and while our heart may want to help as many people as possible, our head says that we cannot let everyone in. Therefore, the debate is often about where we draw the line, particularly for those who are facing persecution.

If we could do it for Ukraine and Ukrainians, and it is right that we do, why can we not understand where the problems are in the system and throw resources at them? We could have internal hit squads that tackle specific issues. We did it for Ukraine: we were able to pull people off other things to tackle issues. We are not elected, but the voters and citizens out there want to understand what is slowing down the process. Why does it take so long to sort out the backlog? If we can identify those bits of the process that are taking too long—if there are particular legal problems, people are throwing away passports, there are problems with DNA tests or whatever—it would be helpful to the Government’s case to tell us where the problems are and what they are doing to tackle these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, at an earlier stage in our debates on the Bill, I referred to the fact that I am a member of the Woolf Institute’s Commission on the Integration of Refugees, which is declared in the register of interests.

I and some other Members of both Houses of Parliament have had the advantage of going to a number of meetings where those with lived experience of applying for asylum and achieving it have told us about their experience. Unanimously, they say that being unable to work while there has been work obviously available for them has been the most dispiriting experience. It is the thing that has driven them—most of them young people with considerable skills, and some with professional and technological qualifications—near to total despair. It seems entirely unreasonable that they should not be able to work when, as my noble friend has said, there is clearly work available and the pull factor has been shown to be non-existent.

The other thing that people with lived experience have mentioned is the lack of availability of higher education in particular in some areas. I invite Ministers to take account of that issue too.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford has added her name to it. She regrets that she cannot be here today; she is actually working with the Woolf Institute’s independent commission on refugee integration. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords who have eloquently made the case for the amendment already.

As it stands, the Bill makes the case for a right to work for some asylum seekers more important than ever. Of course, it is a theme that has come up already. There is little prospect of potential removals being able to keep pace with the large population of asylum seekers who will be deemed inadmissible in the future, and currently we have a huge backlog. We risk the creation of a permanent underclass. Apart from the deleterious effects, that drives some of those people into the grey and black economies because they are not allowed to work openly.

In principle, there may be a grain of evidence on the pull factors but not very much at all, as has been noted already. Allowing a subset of asylum seekers to work does not undermine the duty on the Secretary of State to remove people or open up any path to citizenship or leave to remain. If the Government are able to deliver on their own timelines for processing people and deeming that they are refugees, or should be removed, not a single person will ever attain the right to work under the amendment. We ought to consider the amendment as nothing more than a failsafe aimed only at those who have been here far too long without the ability to support themselves easily and who wish to work and contribute to their own welfare, that of their local community and sometimes that of their family, back in the land they have come from, who are sometimes in semi-hiding.

I think of a friend of mine—I will share a bit of the story, but I do not want to identify them in any way—who has been given the right to work because their claim was not dealt with within 12 months. Because of the inefficiency of the system, it took nearly 12 months after that for them to be told they had the right to work. They are now working in the care sector, way below the level of qualifications and experience they have in their life; they could potentially offer huge amounts to this country. They fled because of persecution. What do they do with most of their money? They pay tax and so on, but they send most of it back to the home country to support their family who are in semi-hiding. It enables their dignity to feel able to support their family, as well as taking part in the life of the community and feeling they are contributing to a country that, they still hope, will welcome them.

This is entirely in line with Conservative economic arguments. It is in line with everything in the universal credit system about encouraging people into work and supporting themselves. Please, it is time to agree to this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

What the noble Baroness does through many of her contributions is argue against anybody using the terminology “illegal immigrant” by virtue of the fact that they have come via that route and have claimed asylum. My understanding of what she is arguing is that their status as an asylum seeker should be accepted by virtue of the fact that they have made that claim.

I said at Second Reading that I based my remarks on conversations that I have had with people who work alongside immigrants in workplaces which are very different from the one we spend our time in. I said that if there was one way I could define the main message that they were seeking to make clear to me and to this House and to Parliament as we consider this legislation—I am quoting myself here—it was:

“Don’t assume or believe that everyone attempting to enter our country illegally is a genuine asylum seeker fleeing persecution”. —[Official Report, 10/5/23; col. 1814.]


I said that because I think that some of the arguments being made about being able to work are based on a desire for us to address that in a context where the noble Baroness’s perception of the situation is rather different from that of other people.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, invoked economic and productivity arguments in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work. Again, I can see where he is coming from and I do not in any way disagree with him or any noble Lord about the hard-working nature or enterprising disposition of people who come to this country. That is not something I would enter into any kind of discussion about. But I think that if we are going to raise economic arguments as a reason for the Government to accept these amendments and allow asylum seekers, at this current moment in time, to work in the way proposed, we must also remember that we have 5 million people on out-of-work benefits at a time when there is a record number of job vacancies.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

There are not 5 million people out of work on benefits. Universal credit applies to large numbers of people in work as well as out of work.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

The information I have is that there are 5 million people receiving out-of-work benefits. In my view, if they are qualifying for these, they are therefore out of work.

--- Later in debate ---

This section does not mention asylum anywhere but talks generally about all children who are being looked after and accommodated. There is no mention of asylum seeking or of families of asylum seekers whatever. These are the rules, and I would like to ensure that if the Government here intend to change them, they do it in accordance with the Government of Wales Act and the section of it that tells us that the Government will not normally act in these matters unless it is done with the consent of both parties.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 139A, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of London has added her name, and then I will turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I remind the Committee of my interests as laid out regarding RAMP and Reset.

As we have heard, Amendment 139A would prevent data about a victim of or a witness to a crime being automatically shared for the purpose of immigration enforcement. My right reverend friend the Bishop of London sponsored a similar amendment during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, and this issue remains hugely important.

Imkaan reports that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting their abuse. It is deeply disturbing that any person would be deterred from reporting a crime that they have been subjected to or have witnessed because they believe that their data will be passed on to immigration officials for the purposes of immigration control. This is especially pertinent for a domestic abuse victim, a modern slavery victim, someone who has been trafficked or someone who has been subject to violence.

In the context of this Bill, a lack of safe reporting pathways would be a major hindrance to the Government’s intent to “go after” the people smugglers who blight communities and destroy lives. Without the assurance of secure reporting to allow victims to come forward and report crimes committed against them, how will the Government ensure that they go after the perpetrators?

As well as a need for prosecution, we have a responsibility to victims. The Istanbul convention, to which the UK is a signatory, states in Articles 5 and 59 that victims of violence must be protected irrespective of their immigration status. It is crucial that we take all possible steps to comply with this and ensure that the right of every person, especially women and girls, to live free from violence is protected.

Since the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act, there has been a call for the overhaul of laws and policies on police data sharing with the Home Office. The Government committed to reviewing this, but stopped short of committing to a firewall. Many dedicated groups have been campaigning on this issue for many years. The House of Commons Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft victims Bill, agreed with them:

“We call for an immediate end to the sharing of victims’ and witnesses’ data between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall for those groups”.


What is set out in Amendment 139A would not prevent data sharing between services where it is required—for example, in healthcare—but would prevent data sharing for the purposes of Section 2(1) of this Bill, namely removal. At a time when trust in the police force is low, especially for minority groups, we must consider the impact of the Bill on the wider community and ensure that, when someone is subject to or a witness of a crime, they can report it without fear.

I turn to Amendment 139B in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for their support. I argue that this amendment is a common-sense proposal that offers the Government a procedure to ensure that statutory oversight of detention facilities and standards is maintained, without altering the Secretary of State’s power to detain on, undeniably, an extensive scale. The Bill establishes a comprehensive detention regime that many of us expected to have been consigned to history. It moves the system away from an administrative process to facilitate someone’s removal to a wider system of incarceration intended to deter asylum seekers from travelling to the UK. Although this signals a major transition in government policy, there is very little detail on the standards, safeguards or protective obligations on the Home Office that there will be when providing detention accommodation. In fact, Clause 10 grants the Secretary of State the power to detain people “in any place” that she “considers appropriate”.

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that the Detention Centre Rules 2001 will be updated in light of this Bill and that all immigration removal centres must operate in compliance with the rules, including any additional sites that are opened. But the Government will appreciate that these standards are not in the Bill and, given that there is very little oversight for the potential mass detention of people, it would be unfathomable to proceed with these provisions without a detention inspection regime on a statutory footing.

This is all the more important given the fact that this legislation overturns the long-held common-law principle that it is for the courts to decide whether the detention of a person is for a period that is reasonable or even justified in principle. The Secretary of State’s duty to detain does not discriminate and, in the absence of any return agreements, thousands of people—including children of all ages, pregnant women, victims of trafficking and those who are disabled—may be detained at the discretion of the Home Secretary for an unrestricted duration. I am afraid that I am not reassured by Ministers saying that habeas corpus provides enough legal protection to challenge detention, as it concerns only whether there is a power to detain, not whether the power to detain was exercised lawfully or is reasonable. Am I not correct in this observation?