Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and indeed all those in this group have to be right. The idea of offshoring is immoral and it would not be in line with the traditions of this country. It is also impractical; for one thing, it would be horrendously expensive, as the Australian experience shows. Offshoring in Australia has proved as damaging to its exchequer as to the reputation of Australia. Of course, that is not what the high commissioner said. I used to be a diplomat and one tends not to say that sort of thing about one’s own country when on diplomatic duty.

However, the real and biggest reason I am against this provision is that it is illegal. It is a clear breach of the refugee convention. We had this argument before, so I can do it in shorthand: there is no provision in the refugee convention that fits with proposed new subsection (2B)(b) of Schedule 3, which is at line 20, where a safe country is defined as

“a place from which a person will not be removed elsewhere other than in accordance with the Refugee Convention”.

The refugee convention, however, says nothing about removal to third countries, safe or not. It says that a refugee is a refugee in a place when he says he cannot go home, because he will not be protected at home and would like to ask for the protection of the host state in the country where he is. That is what the refugee convention says. It says nothing about how he got there, nothing about a “first safe country” and nothing at all about exporting him somewhere else, so the language of new subsection (2B) in Schedule 3 is a misreading of that convention.

Of course, we know that the Government are deliberately misreading the refugee convention. I still think it would assist our debates greatly if the Government would change their mind and let us see the legal advice which has caused them to take the eccentric view that they take of the convention, and hence to propose Clause 11 and all that follows.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly and for the first time in this debate, provoked into doing so by what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. It is fundamentally wrong to legislate in a way that obliges you to break international law. It is very simple, but that is it. We do not have islands around our shores where we can gather together vast groups of potential refugees and asylum seekers.

The other day I was reading a review of a book, which has just come out, about the Isle of Man in the Second World War. There was of course great panic about people of German origin—although most of the poor people were of Jewish origin as well—domiciled in this country. They were rounded up and taken there. There are some fairly inspiring stories but also some very depressing stories. We have to tread exceptionally carefully here. We have gone on a lot about global Britain, but if I am to be proud of global Britain, I want to be proud of a country that is upholding the highest international standards.

Although I take on board what my noble friend Lord Horam said a few moments ago—he made a gently forceful speech that deserves consideration—I just cannot for the life of me think that to herd people into encampments in Rwanda and other far distant places is anything other than a repudiation of our standards as a great country. It would be fundamentally wrong for us to go along this line. Treat thy neighbour as thyself. There is a lot of wisdom in the 10 commandments. A bishop should really be saying this rather than me, but I really believe that it is essential that whatever we do is consistent with our record as the great nation that abolished slavery throughout its dominions and before that abolished the slave trade. There were battles in Parliament for both, but my parliamentary hero is William Wilberforce and I do not want to see his reputation traduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not confusing at all, because Clause 31(2) establishes the facts, and that is all a balance of probabilities. Then, in Clause 31(4), the decision-maker turns to questions of the future. It is at that stage that the reasonable likelihood test is the appropriate test, because the decision-maker is looking to assess what might happen in the future. That is why we have a lower test at that stage. It is quite usual in law to have different stages of a test and different levels of probability at each.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser? What is the problem that we are trying to solve here? Who is pressing for this change? The Law Societies have advised against it. It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to make the task of determining whether the fear exists and is well-founded more complicated and more likely to result in the answer, “No, let’s send him back.” That seems to be what is driving this. I remind him that, in late July and early August, Hazaras from Afghanistan—asylum seekers here—were still receiving letters of rejection, telling them that they were not at risk if they were sent back to Kabul.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the question. What is driving it, as I said a few moments ago, is the attempt to have a consistent and clear approach to decision-making. When you have a single test with different elements, and it is all under “a reasonable likelihood”, it is then that you are more likely to have inconsistent decision-making—I will not use the word “mishmash”. What you are doing here is really two things, and Clause 31 sets them out clearly. You are first saying, “Are you who you say you are?” and “Did you, in fact, fear such persecution?” Those are factual questions, decided on the balance of probabilities. Then the question is: “Is there a reasonable likelihood that, if you were returned, you would be persecuted?” That is a question of reasonable likelihood.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I really do not want to get into a procedural battle. I was trying to be both helpful to the Committee, given the time and pressure, and respectful, I hope, to the noble and right reverend Lord. I reiterate the offer, which I think is appropriate.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Could the Minister answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick? It was rather a flippant answer that he gave—that everybody would be interpreting the convention according to their rights. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, meant: what would be the practical effect? What would happen to the 26 million refugees in the world, three-quarters of whom are in countries contiguous to the one in which they had their citizenship? Would all countries agree, if they introduced this “first safe country” rule, that all refugees had to stay in these contiguous countries—in these encampments in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and so on—and that nobody could move on, under the refugee convention, to another country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will not repeat myself—well, I am going to repeat myself just briefly. If the Government saw refugees as human beings, they would already have written these amendments into the Bill. We are pushing at a closed door at the moment. We should be taking more refugees and creating more safe routes.

I have a word of warning, which is that there will be many climate—ecological—emergencies over the next decade or so and, given that we have contributed a large part of the world’s accumulated CO₂ emissions, we have to understand that we have a moral duty to take our share of climate refugees. It is already happening. There are parts of Africa that are now almost uninhabitable because of climate change, and other places will shortly follow. We have to understand that refugees are not a temporary problem but a permanent problem, and there will be a lot more. If we prepare well and put the programmes and the funding in place, we can cope and do it well. However, while the Government treat refugees as criminals and unwanted people, I am afraid that I see this simply as another reason why the Government have to go.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I think the noble Baroness’s warning is very well taken.

I support Amendments 118, 119A and 119B, but I want particularly to speak in favour of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. The noble Lord and I have done business together for a long time—the past is another country, and it was in fact in another country—and it is a pleasure to be supporting his amendment. I should also say that I am very grateful to the Minister for the letter that she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with a number of useful factual points in it. I am very grateful for my copy today.

It seems to me that the amendment raises two questions: why should one set a number, and why 10,000? Why should one set a number? I am a trustee of the Refugee Council and I have spent some time trying to work out why so many of the Afghan refugees who came here last summer are still in temporary bridging accommodation. I have not quite got to the bottom of it, but it seems to me that the problem is not ill will or lack of intention. I do not criticise the Government. It is a problem with local authorities that arises from the squeeze on their budgets and lack of certainty over financing. The attraction of setting a minimum number is the certainty of having a number in the public expenditure survey—a number negotiated with the Treasury. The Treasury would need to ensure that local authorities were equipped with the money to pay for at least that level.

There seems to be no shortage of willingness in local authorities; it is a shortage of funding in local authorities. When you look at the huge number of local authorities—nearly 300—which came in under the Syrian refugee scheme, it seems to me that what is needed is the certainty that enables one to plan ahead for financing and finding accommodation. So I think setting a number is a good idea and I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for that reason.

Is 10,000 the right number? There are 28 million refugees in the world; it does not seem a very high number. Canada is taking 35,000 Afghans in this calendar year. The population of Canada is just over half the population of the United Kingdom. Comparing us with Europeans, we are number 21 out of 42—bang in the middle of the pack. With our tradition of a presence around the world, that seems to be quite low.

On the other hand, it is probably more than the hotchpotch of present schemes will bring in. It probably would be an increase, but I cannot say for sure because, as the Minister says in the enclosure to her letter today, rather surprisingly, 11 months in, it is still too soon to produce any statistics on how many people are coming in under the resettlement scheme that started in March last year. We do not know how many we are taking now, so we do not know whether this would be an increase. I suspect it would be, but I suspect that overall refugee numbers coming to this country would drop over time. I think this is the answer to the channel problem; 26,000 people came across the channel last year. If there were safe routes—and here is a safe, reliable route—fewer people would try to come unofficially. Fewer people would get killed trying to come into the country.

So I think that, although the number of official refugees would probably go up if we set a 10,000 minimum, the total number of refugees coming here would probably go down. I cannot prove it but that is my instinct. It seems to me that so strong is the incentive to find safe routes that this is a very good way of going about it, so I support the amendment.