Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I declare an interest as a former and retired Home Office lawyer and therefore there is a small pension that is being administered by some private company. The important point about that declaration is that when I was a Home Office lawyer in the 1990s, working on matters that included asylum, there was a moment when a particular failed asylum seeker who was removed was shot on arrival in their home country.

I make that point because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has made the detailed, forensic point so clearly, but as we move into this part of the Bill and start considering non-suspensive appeals, interim relief and what should happen to someone while there is a dispute about the safety of the place to which they are being sent, that is the story that hangs in my mind, and that is really the best contribution that I can make to the Committee’s thinking when we think about non-suspensive and suspensive appeals, and when we think in due course about my own group of amendments, which is about interim relief from domestic courts and international courts.

To facilitate the swift progress of the Committee I will do something that seems counterintuitive. The Government Chief Whip, who is returning to her place, gave us some very good advice about the Committee not liking reading. Which day was that on exactly? Was it Wednesday or Thursday? Was it this year or last year? I understand that point but this is not a filibuster; this is a very short, pithy quote from the JCHR report, which makes the point better than I could about what is wrong with the particular provisions dealt with in this group.

Noble Lords will find the quote on page 105 of the blockbuster JCHR report, which we will not all be able to read in its totality. Paragraph 333 says:

“Making human rights claims ‘non-suspensive’”—


non-suspensive means that you can appeal from the place you say are not safe in; it is perhaps not the place you say you will be shot but the place you might be sent to where you will be shot or otherwise persecuted—

“can only be consistent with our human rights obligations if pursuing those claims from the destination state is viable”.

This is from the JCHR, which is an all-party committee of both Houses. It continues:

“We are concerned that this has not been established for the states deemed safe for removals”.


That was one of the many excellent points made by the noble and learned Lord. It goes on:

“The threshold required to establish a suspensive claim based on serious harm under the Bill, and the requirement for ‘compelling evidence’ to support it”—


for those desperate refugees—

“puts at risk of removal those who have genuine human rights reasons why they should not be removed. Furthermore, allowing the Secretary of State to redefine ‘serious and irreversible harm’ by regulations opens up the possibility of increasing disparity between the protections against refoulement in domestic law and those to which the UK is committed in international law, including”—

the Minister’s favourite—

“the ECHR. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision to make human rights claims non-suspensive, and the extremely high threshold imposed to establish serious harm suspensive claims. The meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ should not be open to amendment by regulations. Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 101, 110 and 113. Two of these amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has added his name, are about the meaning of words. They are words to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, drew attention in her opening remarks on this group.

Amendment 101 directs attention to the definition in Clause 38(3) of the serious harm condition. The Bill says that this requirement will be satisfied if the person faces a

“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed from the United Kingdom … to the country … specified in the third country removal notice”.

Amendment 113 directs attention to the requirement in Clause 41(5) that a serious harm suspensive claim must

“contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met in relation to the person”

making the claim. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for drawing our attention to the reference in the JCHR report to the word “compelling” and its consequences.

So far as

“real, imminent and foreseeable risk”

is concerned, we suggest that that phraseology is unnecessarily complex. If a risk is imminent and foreseeable then one would say it must be a real risk and not a hypothetical one. Conversely, if the risk is real then it would follow that that is because it is imminent and foreseeable. These words are unnecessarily complex. It would be better, we suggest, to delete the words “imminent and foreseeable” or, alternatively, delete the word “real”. The real question is whether the word “real” adds anything if the other two words are satisfied.

As for the word “compelling”, there is an important question in addition to the fundamental point raised in the JCHR report as to what exactly “compelling”, in Clause 41(5), is dealing with. Clause 41(5) is telling the asylum seeker what his or her claim must contain. There are various requirements set out, and the first is that it

“must … contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met”.

The first question is who is to judge that the evidence in that claim is compelling? The clause begins by telling us that the Secretary of State must consider the claim, before the end of the decision period, and make one of the following decisions:

“that the serious harm condition is met … or … that the serious harm condition is not met”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an entirely fair point. In those cases, of course, it would be an imminent feature. As she points out, in those circumstances that is something the courts would be able to have regard to.

The inclusion of “imminent and foreseeable” is intended to prevent the courts from considering risks that are dependent on a series of hypothetical events before the harm might occur. That is the reason, as I understand it, that “imminent” features in the European Court of Human Rights practice direction on interim measures. We cannot allow illegal entrants to be able to thwart their removal based on an unknown risk that cannot be foreseen and may not even arise for many months or years, if at all.

Amendments 102, 103, 104, 109, 111 and 112 would remove the requirement for the risk of harm to be irreversible. These amendments would significantly lower the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim to succeed and undermine the purpose of the Bill to deter illegal entry to the UK. Again, I point out with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that

“a real risk of serious and irreversible harm”

is the test applied by the Strasbourg court when considering applications for Rule 39 interim measures, as he alluded to during his speech.

Amendments 105, 106 and 107 would remove specific examples of harm, relevant to the availability of healthcare and medical treatment in a third country—a passage that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, drew the attention of the Committee to—in circumstances that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm. There is existing case law that indicates that claims based on harm resulting from differing standards of healthcare fall short of the Article 3 threshold. It is simply unjustifiable for those who enter this country illegally to be able to remain here indefinitely and have unlimited access to our healthcare systems solely on the basis that they may not receive the same level of medical treatment in the country or territory they are rightly removed to.

For these reasons, Clause 38 makes it clear that a serious harm suspensive claim based on a risk of harm relating to differing standards of healthcare cannot succeed and, as a result, will not prevent that person’s removal to the safe third country. Clause 38 also makes it clear that a claim based on pain or distress resulting from a lack of medical treatment is unlikely to succeed. By including specific examples of harm that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm in Clause 38, it is ensured that the courts take a consistent approach in their consideration of the risk of serious and irreversible harm and go no further than intended.

The Bill provides a fast-track process for the consideration of a claim which may temporarily suspend a person’s removal from the UK. Clauses 41 and 42, as the Committee has noted, set out the procedure and timescale for making a suspensive claim and the timescale for a decision to be made on a suspensive claim.

Amendment 113 would remove the requirement for a serious harm suspensive claim to include compelling evidence of the risk of serious harm that a person would face if removed to a third country, as noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Reducing the evidential burden in this way risks the process being abused through spurious and unmeritorious claims, similar to those that we have seen in other immigration applications. Evidence that is compelling is defined as that which is reliable, substantial and material to a person’s claim. I suggest that this is a reasonable requirement and necessary to ensure that the suspensive claims process is not open to abuse.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out an explanation of the word “compelling”. He used three adjectives and my impression is that that explanation is intelligible; it is not quite as alarming as “compelling”. Would it not be better to substitute the three words that he quoted for “compelling”? “Compelling” could be read as setting a very high standard indeed, which I do not think the three adjectives that he mentioned do.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful for that suggestion from the noble and learned Lord. If I may, I will take a moment to reflect on that and will revert to him in relation to it.

Amendments 114 and 115 would significantly increase the timescales for making and deciding a serious harm suspensive claim, undermining the fast-track process that we have created in the Bill and our ability swiftly to remove illegal entrants. Where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, it will be possible to extend both the claim period and the decision period. Legal aid will be available to assist a person in receipt of a removal notice in making a suspensive claim. With these safeguards, I suggest to the Committee that it is reasonable to expect a person to bring a suspensive claim within the time periods set out in the Bill. I hope that that addresses the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that illegal entrants are removed as quickly as possible. Extending the decision and claim periods to a total of 60 days for all cases increases the risk that immigration bail would be granted by the First-tier Tribunal and, where bail is granted, that a person would disappear into the community in order to frustrate their removal. The use of detention is therefore necessary to make sure that they are successfully removed from the UK, and our ability to detain a person is dependent on any suspensive claim being both considered and decided quickly. The timeframes outlined in the Bill send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the regulation-making power in Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill. We are considering that committee’s recommendations and will respond before Report stage. I would, however, comment that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on this power.

The amendments put forward would undermine the suspensive claims procedure and the timeframes outlined in the Bill, where what this Government need to do is send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I think that goes back to the point I was making a moment ago. With the greatest respect—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is going to intervene; I will give way if he wants to do so, of course.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It strikes me, in reading this clause, that it proceeds on the basis that the UK is bound by the decision. I greatly respect the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has given us—I am very much in sympathy with it—but, like it or not, the Government’s position has been that it is binding. That is why the clause is so carefully drafted.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

On that, I entirely agree: the clause is very carefully drafted. The Government’s position—as I understand it and I will stop in a moment so we can actually hear from the person we want to hear from, the Minister—is first that they wish to, and will always, abide by international law. Secondly, it gives the Minister a discretion in some circumstances not to abide by Rule 39 orders. It seems to me that if one puts those together the Government’s position has to be that there are at least some circumstances in which you do not abide by a Rule 39 order without breaching international law; otherwise, the two propositions which I set out cannot be put together.

I hope that is an answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question. I am not sure whether the smile indicates it is or is not—

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I think we really have to hear from the Minister, frankly. The clause does set out the various objections and by our jurisprudence the procedures are very defective and I can well understand why one is very uneasy about the whole structure of the rule. The Minister really has to explain the Government’s position and I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that that question needs to be answered.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

In which case, I will give one final statement before I finish. On this we all agree—the answer to this issue, I suggest, lies ultimately in Reykjavik. The answer lies in the engagement between this Government and other Governments with the Strasbourg court to improve the jurisprudence, to set the jurisdiction on a proper footing and to improve the procedures. In that way, for those of us—and I include myself—who want this country to remain part of the convention and play a part in its jurisprudence, that is surely the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 123 and 140, following on the points made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. Amendment 123 in the name of my noble friend Lord Anderson, and to which I have added my name, is directed to the provision about judicial review in Clause 55(5), to which the right reverend Prelate drew our attention. His amendments ask for subsections (2) and (4) to be taken out, while this amendment asks for subsection (5) to be taken out, so I am building on the very impressive speech he made earlier.

The provision we seek to have removed states that a court “may quash the decision” relating to a person’s age only on the basis that it was wrong in law, not because

“the court considers the decision … wrong as a matter of fact”.

That is a very considerable restriction. As the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report on the Bill, errors are normally made in this context,

“not because of an error as to the definition of ‘a child’”,

which should be an issue of law, but

“because of problems with evidence to prove that an individual is under 18”.

Indeed, it is very hard to think of any error of law, in the proper sense of that phrase, that might arise in the context of age assessment. The effect of this restriction is to exclude judicial review, even in a case where there is an error of fact which no reasonable decision-taker, taking reasonable care, would have made. That is quite an extraordinary situation to be created by a provision in a Bill of this kind.

The report of the JCHR, which has been referred to often in these debates, says:

“Given errors of fact are highly likely when conducting age assessments based on subjective judgment, this is extremely concerning and gives carte blanche to Home Office errors”.


Without elaborating on that point—instead, I endorse all the points made by the right reverend Prelate—we suggest, in this amendment, that the restriction in Clause 55(5) is unreasonable, given the nature of the assessments that have been made; therefore, it should simply be deleted from the Bill.

While Amendment 123 is about something to be taken out from the Bill, Amendment 140 raises a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is about the power in Clause 56(1) to make regulations about the effect of a decision by a person

“not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of”

that person’s

“age assessment … where there are no reasonable grounds for”

that decision. The scope of the power, as explained in Clause 56(2), extends to setting out the circumstances in which civil legal services—in other words, civil legal aid—is not to be available to that person, and the person

“is to be treated as if the decision-maker had decided that”

the person

“was over the age of 18”.

It is significant that the clause does not go so far as to say, without qualification, that, if there are no reasonable grounds for the person’s decision not to consent, the person is to be treated simply as over the age of 18. The approach, which I suppose is to be commended, is to say that it all depends on the circumstances—that is, the purpose of the regulation which will be designed to set out what those circumstances are. Nevertheless, the exercise of this power has serious consequences for the person in respect of whom the power is to be exercised, as the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report.

At present, this power to make regulations is subject to the negative procedure, which we suggest is not appropriate, given the nature of the power being referred to. So our amendment seeks to add regulations made under this power to the list of regulations in Clause 63(4) that

“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.

Given the wide scope of this power and the lack of definition of how it will be exercised, we suggest that it is entirely appropriate for it to be added to that list and not subject to the negative procedure. Those are the reasons that the Constitution Committee wishes to put forward, and I give them in support of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for what they said—they said most of what I wanted to say. I declare an interest as chair of University College Hospital’s foundation trust and the Whittington Hospital NHS trust, because it is relevant to what I will say.

When we debated, rather later than this, the Nationality and Borders Bill in February 2022, as the right reverend Prelate observed, we debated something that allowed the Government to introduce regulations that specified scientific methods that could be used to assess age, including examining or measuring parts of a person’s body and analysing saliva, cell or other samples and the DNA within them. As we heard, the use of scientific methods to assess age has long been the subject of debate, and professional medical bodies have been unequivocal in rejecting the use of dental X-rays, bone age and genital examination as extremely imprecise as methods for assessing age, quite apart from being singularly unpleasant. I have not yet met a health professional who thinks that we should use these methods to assess the age of children or young people.

Yet the legislation went ahead and is now being strengthened, and young people who do not consent will be assumed to be adults, which is really worrying for all sorts of reasons already stated in this House. But, of course, it also undermines the fundamental premise that people have to be able to give free consent to any medical procedure or examination and should not be pressured into undergoing them. In the way that these clauses, and this particular clause, are drafted, there is no way in which these young people are not being pressured into undergoing these examinations and procedures. We should take this very seriously because almost every medical and healthcare body would say that this is unethical.

We debated much of this only 15 months ago. Back then, I said that there was wide concern about age assessments among the various voluntary and statutory agencies concerned with young asylum seekers and among many medical, dental and scientific bodies. But, as I said last week, I chair a small family charity in memory of my parents that provides opportunities for education for young asylum seekers, most of whom are slightly older than the group we are discussing here—but a few have not been. Without exception, they all say that the worst of all this is not only the procedures they are being asked to undergo but the fact that they are not believed. It is almost as if there is an assumption that they are not telling the truth.

It is clear that the use of some of these procedures is unethical—certainly if it is not for the young person’s benefit. Since that is the case, can the Minister tell the Committee why a young person or child who does not give consent to these procedures should always be disbelieved, and why they should be regarded as an adult if they do not consent? As a parliamentary body, we have to look at this really seriously. If we do not trust young people at all to tell us the truth, we are making a terrible assumption about those who come to this country, often traumatised and very vulnerable, looking for a better future.