Immigration Bill

Lord Macdonald of River Glaven Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I accept that there are some people in the class that my noble friend describes.

My noble friend Lady Williams talked about supporting a family on £5 a day—I cannot recall exactly what she said—but the payment levels for asylum seekers with children are much higher. A family with two children receives approximately £170 per week. Accommodation is also provided, with utilities—electricity and gas—provided free.

Amendment 72 would make the support given to failed asylum seekers and persons on bail, known as Section 4 support, the same as the support given to asylum seekers—Section 95 support. This is inappropriate, as the types of assistance are different and serve different purposes.

The support that we provide to asylum seekers enables us to meet international obligations. However, there are no obligations routinely to assist failed asylum seekers, the vast majority of whom can reasonably be expected to avoid the consequences of destitution by returning to their own countries—although I am mindful of my exchange with my noble friend Lord Avebury. Exceptions are made only where there is an unavoidable obstacle preventing the person’s immediate departure; for example, if they are too sick to travel, need time to obtain a necessary travel document or have made further submissions relating to their asylum claim. These arrangements ensure that the individuals do not suffer inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a result of being left homeless or without support.

We also use Section 4 to provide accommodation to persons released from immigration detention on bail. The provision of accommodation in this instance is solely to avoid the person being unnecessarily detained through lack of a suitable bail address. Section 4 cases are provided with a weekly allowance to cover their essential living needs provided they move into accommodation supplied by the Home Office. Existing legislation explicitly prevents the allowance being provided in cash.

My noble friend Lord Roberts referred to the limitation as to the retailers involved. In my personal experience, supermarkets provide better value for money than many corner shops. The value and flexibility of the allowance is rightly less than the allowances provided under Section 95. Section 4 support is a temporary fix for people who are not asylum seekers and in nearly all cases need to make arrangements to go home.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the situation in other European countries. She will be aware that these countries have different legal systems and that this country is a very attractive destination.

In answer to my noble friend Lady Williams, I fear that I will be unable to recommend to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that she change the policy, for reasons that I have given. In light of these points, I hope that my noble friend Lord Roberts will agree not to press his amendments.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, will he respond directly to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the purpose of the present policy is to make life in the United Kingdom so unattractive for these vulnerable people that they leave?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, no. The purpose of the current policy is to deter economic migration, because people would be able to come here, claim asylum and after a while be able to work. With this policy, we can deter economic migration through the asylum route and therefore properly determine the genuine cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, I will refer to Amendments 75 to 78 from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. They touch upon important points, including one made in the context of Clause 14 by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and myself.

The Government have an obligation to take into account the best interests of any child affected by their decisions. I accept that Amendment 77 must be understood in the light of the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to amendments tabled to Clause 14. He stated:

“We believe that the children’s best interests must be a primary consideration. … However, it is simply not the case that a child’s best interests will outweigh every other possible countervailing factor, including illegal immigration and serious criminality”.—[Official Report, 5/3/14; col. 1384.]

Amendment 77 seeks to put on the face of the Bill that the child’s best interests should be considered, no matter what the crimes of the parents might be. This remains true.

I support also Amendment 75, which seeks to limit the dangerously broad and vague power that the Home Secretary asks for. The lack of clarity was outlined to me in a Written Answer from the Minister, Lord Taylor, on 10 February, in which he stated:

“The Government does not wish to be overly prescriptive about the meaning of ‘seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom’, as the circumstances of each case will be different. However we intend it to cover those involved in terrorism or espionage or those who take up arms against British or allied forces”.—[Official Report, 10/2/14; col. WA 103.]

He cited terrorism, espionage and taking up arms against British or allied forces as possible specific examples. I hope that all here will wholeheartedly agree that the Home Secretary should be obliged to consider whether the deprivation of citizenship is both a necessary and a proportionate response.

Ultimately, this debate will focus on the finer details of this clause, but we must also take a moment to consider whether the deprivation of citizenship is an appropriate response to alleged criminality or threats to security, given its considerable implications for international law. For this reason, I have put my name to the call made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to oppose the clause in its entirety.

Although I have previously stated that I am not one who understands the law to any measurable extent, I remain a concerned citizen. I am deeply troubled that this provision could allow for the citizenship of millions to be removed, with slim chances of appealing.

Let us not forget the judgment of Chief Justice Warren ruling in the United States Supreme Court case of Trop v Dulles in 1958. He said that,

“use of denationalization as a punishment”,

means,

“the total destruction of the individual's status in organized society. It is a form of punishment more primitive than torture”.

I hope that the Minister will take these comments to heart in replying to the Committee.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, if Clause 60 operates in accordance with the Government’s intentions, it is bound to increase statelessness in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has already reminded the Committee of the words spoken by Hannah Arendt many years ago, that statelessness deprives people of the “right to have rights”. It brings about a bleak, hopeless status, or rather a complete lack of status, that the British Government should have no role in encouraging, first, because of the positively terminal impact that the imposition of statelessness is bound to have on the ability of the rightless to function in a way that is even remotely human in the modern world and, secondly, because it is clear that such an imposition as a policy measure can have no sensible part in a co-ordinated international effort to combat security threats. In fact, it appears to be the antithesis of such an effort, even in circumstances where it is precisely co-ordinated international effort that we need.

In fact, the unilateral imposition of statelessness is very likely to be directly unhelpful to those efforts because it carries with it the very real risk of breaching the United Kingdom’s international obligations to a country which has admitted a person on the strength of their lawful possession of a United Kingdom passport. Of course, such a country would absolutely have the right to return an individual directly to the United Kingdom, and what then? As the JCHR has observed, the United Kingdom would appear to have no absolute right under international law to require other states to accept its outcasts. In my view, therefore, this proposal is not only ugly in the sense identified so many years ago by Hannah Arendt; it not only associates the United Kingdom with a policy beloved of the world’s worst regimes during the 20th century; but it threatens illegal and procedural quagmire hardly compatible with the comity of nations, still less with solidarity between free countries in the face of terrorism.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, have a fundamental problem with this clause. It has been suggested that it was added late to the Bill and designed to overcome the Government’s defeat in Al-Jedda, which was decided by the Supreme Court just last October, but in fact Clause 60 goes substantially further than merely reversing that decision.