Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am not a fan of the Bill but I think it is time for it to pass.

I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who asked if it is always right that the elected House must prevail. The truth is that the elected House must prevail and that yes, that is always right. We are an unelected House. We have a job to do, but at some point it has to be the elected House that decides in a democratic society.

I want to comment on the remarks made about compassion. I too disapproved of Members of the other place who tried to suggest that anyone arguing against the Bill lacked compassion. That is a ridiculous accusation and does not hold. However, I also make the point that the inference in reply—that anyone who is trying to push the Bill at this point lacks compassion—is equally low politically. It is irritating to have a situation where people start to try to compete with each other in the kindness stakes. The big political issue is that this country has lost control of its border and the asylum system is not fit for purpose. This Bill—not one that I support—is trying to tackle that. No one is doing it because they are lacking in compassion.

There are double standards here. I have heard that anyone who supports this Bill must be verging not just on the right but on the far right, does not care about anyone crossing in the boats and is actually a racist. I have heard that said by people active in political life. I ask that, for the remainder of the discussion that we have, we take each other seriously enough not just to dole out insults but to say that, if we are genuinely committed to tackling the problem of border control, this is the Bill that is on the table now and has been accepted by the House of Commons a second time, and, even if we disagree with it, we have to go along with it.

As for the people who have argued that this was not in the manifesto, the suggestion that there is no public concern about control of the borders has no finger on the pulse of any public. However, it is true that there will be elections shortly. It seems to me that people who feel strongly that this is the worst piece of legislation ever passed will stand on that in their manifesto and will commit, here and now, to overturning the Bill once it goes through. Then we will see where the votes lie and, if the Opposition become the Government, whether they stick with that and tear up the Bill. Fair dos if they do.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to answer one question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. He asked your Lordships to ponder the position of the Rwandan Parliament and said that we must not second guess what it may do. What he forgot to mention is that Rwanda has a monist system, so a treaty entered into by the Government of Rwanda is capable of being relied upon in their domestic courts. As I previously informed the House, the Chamber of Deputies of Rwanda has ratified the treaty, and we now learn from my noble and learned friend the Minister that the Senate of Rwanda has also ratified it. The only matter that remains is for the president to agree the ratification and when that happens, the safeguards in the treaty will apply.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but does his reference to the monist system and the guarantee that it goes through the courts not mean that there is no separation of powers between the political and judicial elements of Rwanda?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No, that is simply not the case at all. What the noble Lord appears to suggest is that there is a confusion in the Rwandan constitution; I do not see that at all. The point is that they have agreed that treaties will have a kind of direct effect in domestic courts and once ratified, that is indeed the case. The concern by which he sought to encourage noble Lords to support the Motion before us today is, I suggest, simply not on a secure foundation.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak only once in this debate and very briefly, as usual. I should just mention my interest as president of Migration Watch UK. We have been pressing the Government for three years to get a hold of asylum but, regrettably, the situation has deteriorated greatly. There is something missing from the discussion of this subject, and that is the public. There have been plenty of very interesting and capable legal arguments—I do not touch on any of those—but we must not forget that very substantial numbers in this country are concerned about what is happening now on our borders. The Government need to get a grip and if they do not succeed, the next Government will have to tackle it so let us not be too legalistic. Let us see if we can find a way through.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I am not sure what the noble Baroness’s question to me is, but, as a great Francophile, I am sorry to hear her abuse the French nation in that way.

My noble friend said that this was different because the Supreme Court has expressed an opinion. Amendment 5 says that a purpose of the Bill should be to uphold the rule of law. As I understand it, the rule of law in this country for 1,000 years has meant that laws made and approved by our elected representatives are partially implemented by the courts, and all of us—citizens, public officials, Ministers and police, and even lawyers and bishops—are subject to those laws. If we do not like the law, we can try to persuade our elected representatives to change it. If Parliament feels that the courts have interpreted laws in a way that Parliament did not intend or that is out of line with the values and interests of the public who elect it, Parliament can change the law. That is what we are doing. We have a perfect right to do so as long as Parliament remains sovereign.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was in Rwanda last Thursday. More particularly, I was in the Rwandan Parliament. I can confirm to your Lordships’ House that, on Wednesday last week, the Rwandan Chamber of Deputies ratified the treaty by 64 votes to two. Rwanda is a monist country, unlike this country, which is dualist. That means that the international obligations of Rwanda are enforceable in domestic courts. Once ratified by the Senate of Rwanda, the treaty will have effect legally within Rwanda.

Noble Lords will recall that the basis upon which the Supreme Court found Rwanda to be unsafe was particularly set out in the judgment. Each and every paragraph of the treaty obtained by the United Kingdom Government with the Government of Rwanda was targeted at the decision of the Supreme Court. Noble Lords will notice that, with the approval and ratification of the treaty in Rwanda, there is simply no basis upon which it can be said Rwanda is unsafe. These amendments are unnecessary.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

If that is so, why or how is it that a number of refugees from Rwanda have been given asylum protection in this country?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will be well aware, the treaty is directly reflective of all the Supreme Court’s concerns about the safety of Rwanda. The fact that there are refugees from a certain country does not mean that that country is of itself always and everywhere unsafe.

[The Archbishop of Canterbury]

My Lords, at this stage of the debate on this group, we are looking at two distinct things. One is the question of whether Rwanda is safe. If, as the noble Lord just said, it is unquestionably safe, it seems to me that these amendments are not a problem because, at that point, the Secretary of State can easily say, “It’s safe”, and they will have evidence of that, for this and future Governments.

However, the object of this group is the rule of law, which is the main subject we are looking at. Going back to the development of international human rights law, particularly in the period after 1945, there is a difficulty in totally separating domestic and international law. The rise in international human rights law grew out of the horrors of the 1940s. In 1933, the German Government were legally and properly elected, and passed horrific laws that did terrible things, starting from within a few weeks of the election of Adolf Hitler. That continued, and most historians agree that the first two elections gave the Nazi Party a legitimate majority.

Winston Churchill’s advocacy of the European Court of Human Rights after the Second World War grew up in order to give a fallback where domestic law was not doing the right thing, by linking it to international law and ensuring that there was a stop that said, “You can do this perfectly legitimately domestically, but that doesn’t mean it’s always right and always the right thing to do”. Let us be clear: we are not in a situation remotely like that. The Government are not doing something on the scale of what we saw at that stage. But they are challenging the right of international law to constrain our actions.

The point of international law is to stop Governments going ahead with things that are wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, made two very good points, particularly in his questions. But one thing I was brought up believing and even, believe it or not, something I was told when I was trained as a clergyman—we do get trained, although that may sound surprising from time to time—was that it is a basic rule of ethics and morality that two wrongs do not make a right. So the fact that we have done the wrong thing in the past does not automatically make it right today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for sponsoring Amendments 9 and 12, to which I have added my name. They take up matters that I and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised in Committee. This evening, Rwanda might be the safest country in Africa for all I know, but over the last few years we have seen a number of military coups and takeovers across African countries. To enshrine in legislation the notion that Rwanda will remain safe whatever seems to beggar belief. Who knows in what state that country might be in six to 12 months’ time? Who knows how safe it will be then? The courts need the ability to take new facts into consideration, to recognise that Rwanda may not be the same in a certain number of weeks, months or years as it was on this evening at the beginning of March 2024. We must have that flexibility. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will press these amendments to a Division. I will support him in the Lobby if he does.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of the JCHR delegation, I had the benefit of visiting the very hospital in Kigali that will provide mental health support to relocated individuals. It was an impressive experience. That hospital has very capable psychiatric and psychological care. This is perhaps unsurprising given the context in which Rwanda finds itself. This is a country that, 30 years ago, was caused mass trauma as a consequence of the genocide against the Tutsi, which cost 800,000 lives in Rwanda. You can imagine the impact that has on relatives and those who knew those 800,000 people. Mental health is a widely understood and widely acknowledged issue in Rwanda. The community schemes to work on mental health are abundant. This is a country that understands mental health. The points raised against Rwanda on the basis of mental health are, in my view, unfounded. I do not accept the contentions advanced by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady D’Souza.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Murray, and his trying to portray mental health provision within Rwanda. To use his words, the understanding of the illness may be there, and he says that the provision is significant. I point out that there are 13,170 psychiatrists in the UK, which equates to one for every 5,200 citizens. What the noble Lord, Lord Murray, did not tell the House is that there are only 15 psychiatrists in the whole of Rwanda, which equates to one for every 953,000 people. Clearly, the provision is not on the ground. The number of clinical psychologists is not known, but the latest evidence is that it probably runs to fewer than 200. The people who are vulnerable and critically scarred mentally will need the use of psychologists and psychiatrists. The fact is that they are not there. When the noble Lord, Lord Murray, presents his views of what he has seen, they are important, but they must be put into context of exactly what provision there is in Rwanda. Even though the Government may wish to see mental health provision as important, it is not on the ground to treat people already in Rwanda, never mind people who will be going because of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 21 in my name and also link that with Amendments 20 and 18. If Amendment 20 had had any space, I would have signed it as well, because it makes the same case. I will address Amendment 17 later and look forward very much to seeing how the Government deal with it in their response.

At the moment I will just repeat the universality issue of human rights—they are for all. I read once again the response from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, about legitimacy and I am sure we will hear it again today. But the underpinning of the Human Rights Act is that the protections should not be disapplied just to some people. Human rights are for all; if they become qualified, they are no longer human rights but only rights for some people. This violates the principle of the universality of human rights, which is why this amendment is in place.

It does not matter that this is directed at illegal migrants: once the Government do this for one group, they will choose—or could choose—to use it for other groups such as protesters.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Is the logic of the noble Lord’s point therefore that the Government would be better to repeal the Human Rights Act completely and revert to the pre-1998 situation?

[Lord German (LD)]

No, we simply keep the Human Rights Act, which does the job we are seeking here. Naturally, of course, if the Government want to move and create a special group, as here—what they call “illegal migrants”—what about the other groups that might follow from it? It is very clear that there may well be an issue with protesters—groups that are not in vogue with the Government. It is a very dangerous precedent and this is a warning sign. Fundamentally, what we are seeing here is a chasing of short-term headlines that will have a significant consequence for people’s rights in this country.

Not content with arguments that they are having with the views of the ECHR and the UNHCR, the Government in the last seven days have now drawn swords with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Published last Friday, the council’s report said:

“Prohibiting courts and tribunals in the UK from applying and interpreting principles of domestic human rights law and international law would undermine the ability of the courts to protect all those under UK jurisdiction from violations of their human rights as provided under international law”.


It goes on to say that the Government should look at this matter again and the United Nations has offered to work with the UK Government on this matter. So, when he responds, will the noble Lord tell us whether the Government have read the United Nations Human Rights Council’s review and whether they are prepared to meet the council and discuss this matter further?

There is also a logical inconsistency in what the Government are doing; they cannot have it both ways. They want to rely on the international convention and jurisprudence in justifying the disapplication of the Human Rights Act, but they are then seeking to disapply the findings of that same court in relation to the same international convention with respect to the consideration of interim orders. You cannot have it both ways and the Government need to be clear on that matter.

All the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made about Amendment 17 are absolutely accurate, but one thing worries me completely and that is the part of the amendment that basically takes away every law that this country might apply in this direction—domestic law and common law. For goodness’ sake, with common law as interpreted by the courts, I do not know how you find which parts of it you want to disapply. You have to be specific in what you say if you want to disapply anything of this nature. Amendment 17 looks to me like a complete wiping out, blanking out and blindfolding of every single possible piece of legislation that might stand in the way of this Government’s view, and that absolutely must affect the balance of the rule of law in this country.

I look forward to seeing how the Government will deal with that amendment, but I suggest they might need to consider how they move forward with no further disapplication of the Human Rights Act.

--- Later in debate ---

To put it in context, following the genocide, the abiding principle followed by the Rwandan Government is that of countering what is known as divisionism, ensuring that groups do not arise and are not pitted one against the other. The genocide informs their approach to governance, and that, in effect, means conformity. If you do not conform, it can be and regularly is represented as creating divisionism that would have further consequences and is punishable by law.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The characterisation of the mentality in Rwanda that the noble Lord asserts does not reflect that of the community representatives whom the JCHR met last week. It is clear from the evidence that they gave us that Rwanda is very much a leading light in east Africa, being an open and tolerant home for LGBT+ people. Indeed, it is very much felt in the region that gay people are at home there. Therefore, I do not accept the characterisation that the noble Lord sets out. I encourage him to think again about the welcoming nature of society in Kigali, particularly given what is going on in neighbouring east African states—for example, Uganda and the DRC.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that considered intervention. I can speak only according to my direct experience in Rwanda, from 2008. As I said earlier, in discussion on another group, I worked in Rwanda for several months as the chief election observer for the 2008 elections. At that time, I had to intercede on behalf of activists who were directly experiencing discrimination. I have not given up on that. I recognise what is going on in Uganda and other countries, but comparisons are not always helpful—indeed, they are somewhat odious when it comes to the lived experience of people with whom I am in direct contact. This is not academic; I am talking about what is reported to me, as the noble Lord is referring to what was reported to him and other parliamentarians on a parliamentary visit.

Following on from my previous references to divisionism and the consequences caused by one group being pitted against another, I therefore assert that LGBT people could not live openly. To do so would be a challenge to others that would not be accepted. It would and could be portrayed as divisionism.

This is in direct contrast to the protections that arise from the judgment referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, in HJ (Iran) from the Supreme Court of 2010. It affects characteristics that come from belonging to a particular social group. Again, I refer to my intervention in Committee, where I represented some of the concerns of LGBT activists. I will not repeat them, but if Members of your Lordships’ House request me to do so, I would be more than happy to oblige.

At the end of last week, I again made contact with LGBT activists, and asked again what the situation was like for LGBT asylum seekers in Rwanda. The reply was succinct and stark, written in four separate messages so that it could not be connected or traced:

“Rwanda is not a safe place for LGBTQ asylum seekers at all.


Though there are no laws

Community is facing

So much violence and discrimination”.

They are not my words, but the words of people living in that region. That is the reality of life for the LGBTQ people that we send to Rwanda, and sadly not the representations made to visiting parliamentarians.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of an immediate returns agreement with France, for which there seems little appetite, it is only by delivering the Rwanda scheme that the Government can achieve the deterrent effect necessary to prevent migrants from attempting to enter the United Kingdom by dangerous and illegal means.

In the brief time available to me, I shall focus on two matters that have been the subject of much misperception in your Lordships’ House. The first is the effect of the Section 19(1)(b) statement on the face of the Bill. As a person who has previously signed such a statement, I have carefully considered its significance. Contrary to a common misunderstanding among opponents of the Bill in your Lordships’ House and the other place, and as we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the statement does not mean that the Minister is certifying that the measures in the Bill are incompatible with the human rights convention. Following a practice introduced under the last Labour Administration, a Minister will not make a Section 19(1)(a) statement of compatibility unless they are satisfied that, if there was a legal challenge to the new law or a decision taken under it, there is a greater than 50% probability that the court will find the measure to be compliant with the convention commitments of the United Kingdom. In all other circumstances, the Minister will issue a Section 19(l)(b) statement. That is what has happened here.

Therefore, the placing of a declaration of this kind on the front of the Bill cannot, and must not, be characterised as a statement that the Government believe that the measures in the Bill are incompatible with the UK’s convention commitments. The point is that in making such a declaration the Government do not concede any breach of the convention, and indeed there is every prospect that the Government will prevail in any litigation, as occurred in the 2013 Animal Defenders case, which upheld the compatibility of a provision in the Communications Act 2003 that had, when before Parliament, been accompanied by a Section 19(1)(b) statement.

In any case, it is for Parliament to decide whether it thinks the Bill is compatible with convention rights, and it should not be misled by the way in which Section 19(1)(b) statements are phrased, because that would be to misunderstand the substance. Given the treaty and the commitments underpinning the Bill, it is evident that the Bill does not expose anyone to a real risk of removal to conditions under which they would be tortured or exposed to any other convention violation.

The second misperception was exemplified in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord German, today, and the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, today and in last week’s debate on the ratification of the Rwanda treaty. It is that the outsourcing of asylum claims made in the UK to a third country is unlawful or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, “dishonours our convention commitments”. This is not so. In the recent Rwanda litigation, this was rejected by the Divisional Court, which held that third-country processing was not unlawful or contrary to the refugee convention. The claimants unsuccessfully sought to appeal that finding. The Court of Appeal, unanimously on this point, agreed with the Divisional Court. The Supreme Court did not even grant permission for any further appeal on that and therefore the law is clear. Third-country processing of asylum claims is lawful.

Having clarified these two matters, I make one final point. This Bill will save lives and protect our borders. It warrants the support of this House.

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that that was totally unacceptable, and the inquiry was obviously right to highlight it a something that needs urgent attention. As regards whether advice has been issued, I will have to come back to the noble Baroness, but I am pretty sure that those recommendations are being implemented.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, alluded to the fact that, in the case of those on bail, their detention is regulated by custody time limits. Will my noble friend the Minister agree that, in the case of immigration detention, it should always be regulated by the Hardial Singh principles, enunciated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and as reflected by the recent and now in force provisions of the Illegal Migration Act?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that; I agree with him. I would also point out that Stephen Shaw, as I mentioned earlier, wrote a report, which he updated in 2018, on welfare in immigration detention. He said the following:

“The current Government position is to oppose a time limit (whether of 28 days or any other period), but Parliament may at some point take a different view … at present, the case for a time limit has been articulated more as a slogan than as a fully developed policy proposal”.


I am afraid that I agree with that.

Justification Decision (Scientific Age Imaging) Regulations 2023

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, some things have been spoken of in this debate, but what is absolutely clear is that in every element the Government have provided more and more uncertainty. We have before us a set of regulations which are clearly down to a Government seeing themselves in a hurry to get things done in a way which might satisfy certain elements of its own party, but which is nothing to do with the case in question, which is about age assessment.

I just want to ask the Government four questions arising from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Government have signed up to and to which we are party. First:

“An age assessment should only be conducted if it is in the best interests of the child”.


Perhaps the Minister in replying can explain to us why this is in the best interests of a child.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why scientific methods are used to assess age in, among other countries, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France, Germany and the Netherlands.

[Lord German (LD)]

The information provided by the Council of Europe, which of course does not reflect the notifications we have received from the Government, describes the legal cases which have been taken against the proposals made by some of those states and which have in fact been found to be in contravention of the very convention I am talking about.

Secondly:

“Age assessment should not take place without the child’s and their guardian’s informed consent”.


How will that consent be provided and how is it meant to be independent?

Thirdly:

“Children undergoing age assessment have a right to be informed of their rights during the procedure, the purpose, steps and duration of the procedure, and to be assisted by a legal representative and/or guardian”.


What steps are the Government taking to provide that support for these children, so we are clear about it?

In conclusion, “sub-optimal” is the word provided by our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Everything that has been said about what we have in this House today suggests that it is below optimal.

Certificate of Sponsorship: Foreign Health and Care Workers

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will take action to ensure that care providers who issue out-of-country certificates of sponsorship to foreign health and care workers provide sufficient work to allow them a living wage while resident in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office’s sponsor licence system places clear and binding requirements and obligations on employers, including paying the required salary, looking to recruit and manage overseas employees across all sectors, including care. Should an employer be found in breach of these requirements, we will swiftly take action and can remove its ability to recruit from overseas.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that those requirements are frequently not complied with? Is he aware that the Kenyan and Zimbabwean diasporas report certificates of sponsorship regularly being sold in those countries for many thousands of pounds to care workers who, when they arrive, are not provided with sufficient hours of work to enable them to live, leaving many indebted and destitute? Will the Government end this scandal by requiring a minimum number of hours of work to be provided, and enforcing compliance through an audit of HMRC records held for every employer for whom a certificate of sponsorship is issued?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The rules provide that care workers must be paid at least £20,960 per annum, not lower than £10.75 per hour based on a 37.5 hour working week. The Government do not tolerate illegal activity in the labour market. Any accusations of illegal employment practices will be thoroughly investigated, and it goes without saying that we strongly condemn the offering of health and care worker visas under false pretences.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, recently I had brief contact with a residential care home where it seemed that many of the front-line care staff were from the Philippines. It made me realise that these staff were a long way from home and unlikely to understand the safeguards in British employment law. Is the Minister satisfied that safeguards are in place for such staff?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes, I reassure the noble Lord that the Home Office works very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care on ensuring the safety and security of those who come to work here on visas and of those for whom they care.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a key problem with the health and care worker visa scheme is that it forces workers into dependency on an individual employer? If a worker leaves that job, they need to find another sponsoring employer within 60 days or face deportation. The terrible truth is that many vulnerable care workers are more frightened of the Home Office than they are of an exploitative boss. Does the Minister agree that the Government should introduce a sector-wide fair pay agreement, strengthen workers’ rights and work with trade unions so that workers have the confidence to exercise their rights?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that migrant workers are able to seek alternative employment in the event that their initial placement is unsatisfactory for the reasons that she outlines, provided that they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor—which of course stands to reason. They can make a new application for a further visa in those circumstances.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be very helpful to have a long-term national social care workforce plan, so that we can compare the assessed need for care workers from overseas with the number of certificates of sponsorship being issued?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said, the Home Office works closely with the Department of Health and Social Care in relation to the requirement for those working in the health and social care sectors—and there is a lot in what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

Recently, it has been reported that a number of care workers have been exploited. The Minister has given assurances that this is totally unacceptable. How many prosecutions have taken place over the last year of people, bodies or care homes that have exploited the system?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord that, since 1 July 2022, 87 sponsor licences have been revoked and 32 suspended pending further investigation.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that these care workers—not all of them, but some—who come to the UK to look after our elderly are sometimes charged thousands of pounds by recruiting companies and care companies. It has sometimes been as much as £20,000, yet it is illegal for the workers to pay more than £260 for the costs of their visas and travelling. Sometimes—not always—when they arrive in the UK, the company that hired them will fire them after a few months so that it can bring in another worker and charge them £20,000. My information is based on talking to some of these care workers. They do not want to give their names, or the names of their companies, because their immigration status is rather precarious. Are the Government aware of this money-making scam?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Home Office is aware that abuses exist. I reassure the noble Lord that the sponsor licence system places clear and binding requirements and obligations on employers looking to recruit. The Department of Health and Social Care has published guidance on applying for jobs from abroad, as part of a wider effort to address its concerns about exploitive recruitment and employment practices. That guidance helps prospective overseas candidates to make informed decisions when seeking health or social care jobs in the United Kingdom, including information on how to avoid exploitation and where to report concerns.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that abuses exist in this sector. In a previous answer, he seemed sympathetic to a social care workforce plan and to agree that there should be some sort of fair pay agreement. What is his ministry doing to implement these things? Is he consulting his colleagues in the health and social care sectors to bring the workforce plan into being?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

There is no workforce plan in process. As I say, the communication between the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care and other relevant government departments is a close one. The function that the Home Office can perform is to set the minimum floor for the sum that these workers must be paid, which, as I said earlier, is £20,960, reflecting an hourly salary of more than the living wage. That is an important mechanism to achieve the objective that the noble Lord outlined.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I read in the financial pages of the profits that chains of privately owned care homes are making. I also note that some of them have their headquarters outside the United Kingdom for tax and other purposes. Is it a failure of regulation that these companies are extremely profitable with a substantial chunk of those profits coming from subsidies from the state or local government? Do the Government think they should tighten regulations to make sure that conditions for such workers are adequate?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is not for the Home Office to regulate the profits made by private companies, and the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on that. I reassure him that the Department of Health and Social Care is sighted on what the appropriate standards should be for those working in the sector, and it works with the Home Office on the grant of sponsor licences for those coming to work in the sector.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

Attracting social care staff to the social care sector, whether from the United Kingdom or from abroad, is important. Where there are cases of exploitation what advice can the Minister give to those individuals—especially those who come from other countries and may not know the system very well—about where they can turn if they feel they are being exploited?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Information is certainly available on the GOV.UK website, which is signposted from the health and social care visa pages. There are also NGO bodies, including Care England and the gangmasters licensing authority, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, trade unions.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The Minister has used the term “abuses” a number of times. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, to which he has just referred, says that the health and care worker visa system is being abused by criminals, leading to a “constant stream of allegations” of fraud and modern slavery—a rather stronger term. Following on from the question about the involvement of the private sector in this, I ask: what value are all these Wild West private sector firms that are popping up adding to the system? Would it be better to do this not in a privatised way but, if we need to recruit care workers from overseas, to do so through a national workforce plan and not-for-profit agencies?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness will be unsurprised to learn that I do not agree that the state is the answer in the provision of health and social care in the way that she suggests. It is entirely appropriate that private companies can recruit in the way that they presently do, that abuses are stamped out and that the Home Office uses its enforcement powers in the way that it does and will continue to do.

Asylum Seekers: Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have (1) to maintain, and (2) to enhance, the protection of asylum seekers who would risk ill-treatment if returned to a country of origin because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

The Government are committed to delivering an asylum system that continues to protect individuals from persecution, including that based on sexual orientation and gender identity. At the same time, we remain determined to tackle illegal migration so that we deter individuals from risking their lives making dangerous channel crossings.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I ask this Question in relation to assurances given during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill through your Lordships’ House, in particular on LGBT+ asylum seekers. I remain deeply concerned given the recent statements made by the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, in the United Kingdom and the United States and the misrepresentation—indeed, the belittling —of the discrimination experienced by women and LGBT+ people, which, I believe, undermine the assurances given. Therefore, having given the Minister sight of my Question because I believe that we need to detoxify this issue, I ask the Government for an unequivocal reassurance that they will abide by the commitments made to this House and will maintain the principle of assessing the risk of persecution faced by women and LGBT+ people, which is established in law and which I believe forms the basis of a humane, comprehensive asylum policy.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me sight of his Question in advance. I can assure noble Lords that the cornerstone of the asylum consideration process remains the requirement to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in Article 1A(2) of the 1951 refugee convention and enshrined in last year’s Nationality and Borders Act. There has been no downgrading of the threshold. We do not return asylum seekers to their home countries if their sexuality or gender would place them at risk of future serious harm or persecution. This is of course the principle derived from the case of HJ (Iran), which we discussed during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill. Nor would we relocate someone to a safe third country if there was a real risk of their suffering serious and irreversible harm if they were removed from the United Kingdom.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that many LGBT people seeking asylum do not have access to legal advice to help them prepare for interviews in which they must explain convincingly why they fear persecution in their own countries? Has the Home Office made any assessment of the impact that speeding up asylum processing will have on those who lack legal advice as they prepare for their interviews?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Legal advice is certainly an issue we are aware of, and assistance is provided to those making applications. It may be of note to my noble friend that the number of LGB claims in 2022 almost doubled—an 89% increase compared to 2021. Thus, in 2022, 2% of asylum claims in the United Kingdom—1,334 claims—included sexual orientation as part of the basis for the claim. There do not appear to have been any issues concerning representation, given the increase in the number of such claims.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, can the Government look further at implementing compassionate, community-based alternatives to detention, as recommended in the evaluation published by the UNHCR earlier this year of the two Home Office funded pilot projects which ran from June 2019 to June 2022?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will recall, as part of the structure of the Illegal Migration Act detention forms an important part of the deterrent effect to dissuade people from crossing the channel. Of course, detention should only be done when it is necessary. In these circumstances the Government take the view that it is.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Minister’s earlier remarks were very welcome, feeding the culture of disbelief in the Home Office, as the Home Secretary did, too often means that women who claim asylum on the basis of sexual orientation have their claims wrongly refused. What steps will the Government take to tackle this damaging culture of disbelief?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not accept that there is a damaging culture of disbelief. Asylum claims are taken very seriously by the department, as can be seen from the grant rates in asylum cases. We also have a very elaborate appeal structure to independent members of the judiciary, so I do not accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question.

[Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)]

My Lords, I am slightly troubled by some of the remarks made by the Home Secretary, to be perfectly frank. There is a phrase, “performative utterance”. By creating a space in which it is possible to doubt and to sow that doubt you are therefore making it discomforting for those who might seek asylum in this country and all the good things which we have stated. I would like to believe that the Home Secretary did not mean what she said. Is the Minister sure that she did mean that?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am unsure what my noble friend has deduced from the Home Secretary’s speech. She merely observed that the European Court of Human Rights could be more transparent and accountable in how it interprets rights. The Government do not believe that it is necessary to leave the ECHR in order to deliver major priorities such as tackling illegal migration. I can only commend her speech to noble Lords. It repays careful reading.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, does this not go to the heart of the problem the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has just outlined? The Minister gives us reassurances from the Dispatch Box and, as my noble friend Lord Cashman said, we had many reassurances during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act. However, it does not alter the fact that the Minister’s boss, the Home Secretary, stated that claiming asylum on the basis of persecution for being gay or a woman would not be sufficient. Who are we to believe? Is the Minister making up policy different from that of the Home Secretary, or will he now go back to her and say that this House demands an asylum system based on the principles we have always had—that where anybody faces persecution, this country offers a safe haven?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I fear that the noble Lord has not read the Home Secretary’s speech closely enough. She asserted that there exist interpretative shifts away from persecution in favour of discrimination, and from well-founded fear towards a credible or plausible fear, and there may be a need to tighten the definition of who qualifies for protection.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, refers to ill treatment and sexual orientation. When I steered through this Chamber the same-sex marriage legislation relating to Northern Ireland, a friend of mine was sat in the Public Gallery who would have qualified under that law, being an Ulsterman. He had been subjected to conversion therapy. Can my noble friend please convey a message back to the Government that a large number of people in this House would welcome a conversion therapy Bill being introduced in the King’s Speech?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that, just like my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I do not know what will be in the King’s Speech, but I will certainly take that point back. The Government remain committed to upholding the rights of LGBT+ people and stand with those around the world facing persecution in relation to their sexuality or gender. No one should be persecuted because of their sexuality or gender identity.

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

On two occasions during this session of Questions, interpretations have been put, one way or the other, on utterances of the Home Secretary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has argued his case, and the Minister is doing the same. Can we deduce from these differences of understanding that the Home Secretary has mastered the art of studied ambiguity and is able in her speeches to say just enough of an unacceptable nature to persuade people that that is the policy of the Government she represents? Could the Minister perhaps have a little word with his boss to indicate that people are broadly getting the message that all her speeches need to be interpreted, because none of us understands much about where she wants to go with her political career?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I must disagree with the noble Lord. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is always admirably clear in her speeches, and there can be no doubt that the issues she discussed in the learned speech she gave in Washington are ones the House should consider closely.

Migrants: Barges

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

I can assure both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that the health and welfare of individuals in asylum accommodation, including vessels, is our utmost priority. The Home Office has worked throughout with the UK Health Security Agency on the management of contagious diseases and the policies relating to that, particularly in respect of vessels. Medical facilities and isolation rooms on board have been designed by local NHS services, with UKHSA input.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the data from Dorset Council discovered that the legionella strain found on the “Bibby Stockholm” was the most deadly. Public health officials remain concerned that the Government, by doubling the number of asylum seekers on the boat, put them at risk of infectious diseases that spread very fast in overcrowded places, such as diphtheria, scabies and gastroenteritis, all issues that have been found at Manston and other places. Can the Minister confirm that the legionella was successfully removed and that the Home Office will follow public health advice about the number of people kept in places to reduce disease spread caused by overcrowding?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm that the Home Office went above and beyond the UKHSA’s initial advice in managing the legionella situation, which was to have no new arrivals to the “Bibby Stockholm”, and decided to evacuate the barge immediately. We have robust and well-rehearsed processes in place across the government estate to test for legionella bacteria and it is not unusual to identify it in water systems, which is why they are subject to regular testing.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to consider, at least initially, yesterday’s devastating report from the public inquiry into the scandal that is Brook House detention centre? I will not waste your Lordships’ time with the details, but they are worth a read. Has he had the opportunity to read the published remarks of His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, and his comments about how he has been thwarted by Home Office Ministers in doing his job of independent review? I am sure that noble Lords would be grateful for a response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Baroness well knows, sadly this Question is limited to the adequacy of the implementation of measures to spread infection on barges.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The Companion is quite clear. I am afraid I will not be drawn on the Brook House inquiry report in this session.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, if, as the Minister says, there are robust measures to ensure the health and well-being of people put on barges, why were a number of refugees and asylum seekers put on the barges before the health measures were in place?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The health measures were in place, and it was only at a very late stage that the Home Office was made aware of the findings of Dorset Council. At that time, as I say, the Home Office decided to go beyond the recommended position from the UKHSA, which was not to put any more migrants on the barge, and instead to evacuate it, which was surely the responsible thing to do.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister take on board—no pun intended—the concern for not only the asylum seekers who were subjected to this but Home Office officials, and presumably contractors, who must also have been exposed to the legionella?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said in my initial Answer, one of our paramount concerns is the health and welfare of migrants and our staff. I can reassure the House that no one has contracted legionnaires’ disease as a result of the finding of this presence in the water supply.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, the barge is only one solution to the growing numbers who need to be accommodated. What provision of healthcare is being considered at MoD sites such as Wethersfield and, potentially, Scampton? Will GPs be on site and what all-round healthcare will there be to ensure that those resident there are kept safe?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. One of the great advantages of the utilisation of large sites and barges for the housing of migrants is that specific contracting can be provided for the provision of healthcare for migrants. I can reassure him that there is a GP service available to all the residents of the large sites. A nurse is present routinely throughout the week at various times. The health of the migrants is, as I say, something the Home Office takes very seriously. Furthermore, the provision by contract on these large sites prevents the utilisation of local GP resources in the environs of the large sites, either at Wethersfield or for the barge in Dorset.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what confidence can this House have in the Government’s efforts to contain the spread of infectious diseases on barges when the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, referred to by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, has had his contract terminated because he has been too critical of the Government’s policy? I will tell the Minister one thing: it is not the inspector’s contract that needs terminating.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I replied to the noble Baroness, that is a long way from the topic of infection on barges. The term of office of the chief inspector was time limited. It is clearly open to the Home Secretary not to renew the appointment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain this to me, because I have not really understood it? Presumably the Government instituted health checks before any migrants were put on that boat, so why was it only the Dorset Council review that threw up these very negative findings? If the Government did not know about this, why did they respond to it so quickly?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Because those health checks were the responsibility of Dorset.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that one of the reasons for trying to house these migrants on the barge is to try to reduce the costs on the Government as far as this whole episode is concerned. Will my noble friend tell me what budget the costs for this project and other projects come from?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Presently, the hotel bill for migrants is in excess of £8 million per day. It is vital that the use of hotels is drawn down and stopped as swiftly as possible. I can reassure my noble friend that the budget is there in the Home Office for the accommodation of migrants. It is equally important that the taxpayer obtains value for money.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, as the Minister has ruled that this Question is about barges only, once it is clear that the barges are safe and there is no danger to health, can he arrange for one of them to be brought up the Thames and moored outside the Houses of Parliament to provide accommodation to Peers from outwith London who are finding that the escalating costs of hotels in London is using up all our daily attendance allowance?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have a certain sympathy for the noble Lord’s point. I can reassure him that the use of barges to house asylum seekers is done routinely by our friends in Europe. The German Government housed asylum seekers on this very barge between 1995 and 1998. The Dutch and Belgian Governments have equally done so. The standard of accommodation is high. The noble Lord will recall that the Scottish Government housed Ukrainian asylum seekers on two vessels in Scotland. I think that one of those vessels, the MS “Victoria”, was used to house policemen during the Olympics. This is civilised living accommodation, and clearly I shall inform the Port of London Authority of the noble Lord’s suggestion.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm the cost of the barge sitting there empty at the moment? Reports are that it is about £50,000 a week. Can he confirm whether that is the case, and can he say, for the cost of that, how many immigration officers could be employed to clear the backlog?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that the correct due diligence and financial assessments are carried out and reviewed regularly to ensure that all vessels progressed for asylum accommodation provide value for money to the taxpayer. There is, of course, an intangible benefit, which is that by emptying the hotels we return them to their proper use for the benefit of the communities where they are located. As my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister has repeatedly made clear, it is a problem across the House that these hotels are not in use for their normal purpose, and it is very important that they are emptied as swiftly as possible.

Family Migration (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for both securing this debate and chairing the committee. I am very grateful to all who have contributed to our discussion today, and I offer my thanks too to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee for its in-depth assessment of the family migration system and its considered recommendations for improvement.

I am sorry that noble Lords were not satisfied with the government response. I can confirm that the Government have read, taken on board and responded to these points, but of course I welcome the opportunity to hear the views of the House on this subject, which is one of wide interest.

I turn to the principal recommendations and will address them in turn. First, on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on harmonising routes, I note that the Government recognise that there is a need to simplify and consolidate the family Immigration Rules, and we are committed to doing so in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission’s report of 2020. Our first tranche of updates was introduced in June 2022, alongside the simplified private life rules. However, of course reform needs to be done properly, and the Government believe that there are risks in attempting to harmonise the rules for the sake of doing so. Each route serves a specific customer and purpose and there is a correct balance to be struck to ensure that each route has the right conditions of entry and stay for family members.

Given the broad and diverse offer for family members across the immigration system, it would not be right fully to align all the requirements for the various family routes. There are clear differences in the needs of different groups and the purposes behind the rules. Therefore, it is right to harmonise the rules where we can, but in a sensible way, reserving the ability to vary requirements according to the nature and purpose of the route.

In addition, there is a balance to be struck between an individual’s right to a family and private life and the need for effective immigration control and public spending. Tailored requirements on family routes enable Parliament to determine appropriately where the balance lies for different cohorts.

On the noble Baroness’s comments in respect of the diversity of contemporary families, the report recommends taking a broader approach to the definition of family members—one that it says would reflect better the diversity of modern families. The right reverend Prelate raised this point. Contemporary families are diverse, and this diversity can affect how and where families might choose to live. We recognise that some elements of the family rules can be difficult to prove, and that, in modern family life, it is not unusual for parents to work, study or even live in different countries. However, it is important to recognise that the Government’s approach to family life is based on well-established guidance provided by the courts in their interpretation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I turn to my noble friend Lord Hunt’s very moving address and other noble Lords’ comments in respect of the best interests of the child. The Government are confident that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the best interests of children are fully considered at every stage of the immigration journey, in line with the statutory obligations imposed on the Secretary of State by Section 55 of the borders and citizenship Act 2009. Considering the best interests of the child is at the heart of what we do; it is a central tenet in our policy and operational decision-making. Decision-makers are routinely trained and have access to guidance that makes specific reference to Section 55. They also take into account a range of other relevant legislation in their decision-making.

In response to the noble Lord’s comments that the Government should revisit the existing mainstream immigration pathways rather than create bespoke ones, where possible we use existing pathways in response to events. However, there are some events so critical that we need to provide bespoke routes best to serve the issue at hand. One example was the Ukraine emergency. We are always learning from these in order to adjust our offer.

I turn to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in respect of adult dependent relatives. The Government disagree with the report’s findings that there is no pathway to the UK for adult dependent relatives, or ADRs. The current ADR route is designed to provide settlement in the UK for those most in need of care, but not for those who simply have a preference to come to live in the UK.

The ADR rules are carefully designed to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, to promote integration and to tackle abuse, and thereby to ensure that family migration to the UK is on a properly sustainable basis that is fair to migrants and the wider community by not being reliant on access to public services funded by UK taxpayers. When the policy was reformed in 2012, the Department of Health and Social Care estimated that a person living to the age of 85 costs the NHS on average around £150,000 in their lifetime, with more than 50% of this cost arising from the age of 65 onwards. These rules were upheld as lawful by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

The impact of medical professionals potentially leaving the NHS was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This has previously been considered by the Home Office and was part of the review of the adult dependent relative rules, which were published in December 2016. That report considered the very point made by the noble Baroness: the suggestion about the number of NHS staff who support adult dependent relatives overseas is one that should be considered. The report concluded that that number is likely to be a very small proportion of the total population of professionally qualified clinical staff. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that significant numbers of medical professionals have left or been deterred from applying to work in the UK since the revised adult dependent relative rules were implemented; indeed, record numbers of people are coming from abroad to work for the NHS. In summary, the Government believe that those who choose to come to the UK and ultimately settle here do so in the knowledge that they can be leaving behind family members in their country of origin. There should, therefore, be no expectation that family members will be able to join them in the United Kingdom.

I turn to the financial requirements, which were raised by a number of noble Lords. The Select Committee’s report invited the Government to take a fresh look at the financial requirements set out in the family rules. We will do so. The Government continue to keep the family Immigration Rules under review and make adjustments in the light of feedback on their operation and impact. However, the Government remain of the view that family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and that family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life. The purpose of the minimum income requirement, implemented in July 2012 along with other reforms of the family Immigration Rules, is to ensure that family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so that they do not become a burden on the taxpayer and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. It has long been a requirement for a family migrant to demonstrate that they are able to support themselves without becoming a burden on the taxpayer, but the purpose of the minimum income requirement is to ensure that that requirement is consistently applied; that is right and fair.

I turn now to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in respect of fees. I am sure all noble Lords would agree that academia, science and research have an enormously beneficial and enriching effect on our society and way of life. I am proud of this Government for launching the global talent scheme to allow those aged over 18 who work in the fields of science, engineering, the humanities, medicine, digital technology or the arts and culture and can demonstrate exceptional talent or promise to apply for visas. Obviously, that topic is at some remove from the matters discussed in the report.

I turn to the noble Lord’s point about the immigration health surcharge. It ensures, I suggest, that migrants make a suitable contribution to the NHS during their stay. The surcharge is set at a level that broadly reflects the cost of providing NHS treatment to those who pay it. Payment of the surcharge enables migrants to access NHS care on broadly the same basis as United Kingdom nationals for the duration of their visa without them needing to worry about healthcare charges or private health insurance. Since its introduction in 2015, the surcharge has raised more than £3.4 billion in much-needed income, which goes to the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Administrations for health spending.

As was noted by a number of noble Lords, on 15 September the Government laid regulations that will increase a range of fees across immigration and nationality routes, including those paid by people who want to settle in the UK. The new fees are to come into effect on 4 October. The increases reflect the fact that the majority of fees have not been subject to a significant increase since 2018, despite a context of high inflation and record high migration to the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, noted, fees for immigration and nationality applications play an essential part in the Home Office’s ability to operate a sustainable migration and borders system. It is the Government’s policy that those who use and benefit from the immigration system should contribute towards the cost of operating the system, reducing the burden on the taxpayer. The increases announced by the Government will mean that a greater share of that cost will be met by those users of the system. This will, in turn, allow more funding to be prioritised elsewhere in the Home Office.

I turn to the short remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on safe and legal routes. I am proud that since 2015, we have resettled over half a million people through such routes, and we agree that safe and legal routes are preferable to making life-threatening journeys across the Mediterranean and the channel. That is why we are launching our consultation on safe and legal routes, as required by the Illegal Migration Act, a topic the noble Lord knows well.

Many noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, discussed the topic of family reunion. Between 2015 and June 2023, the United Kingdom issued more than 46,511 family reunion visas. More than half of those were issued to children—this is no small feat. The Government recognise that families can become separated because of the nature of conflict and persecution, and the speed and manner in which people are often forced to flee their country. Our refugee reunion policy allows individuals with protection status in the UK to sponsor their partner or children to stay here with them, provided they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country of origin to seek protection.

We believe that if children were allowed to sponsor parents, this would create a perverse incentive for more children to be encouraged—even forced—to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK. This would play into the hands of the criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people and goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. Our policy is not designed to keep child refugees apart from their parents but, in considering any policy, we must think carefully about the wider impact to avoid putting more people unnecessarily in harm’s way.

In response to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who suggested that the policy was contrary to international or domestic law, a recent judgment of the High Court in the case of DN v Secretary of State for the Home Department ruled in favour of the Government’s policy on child sponsors. It was not found to be unlawful, so I do not accept his point.

Family reunion in the UK is generous, more so than in some of our European counterparts. Sponsors do not have to be settled in the UK, there is no fee, no time limit for making an application and there are no accommodation or minimum income requirements that applicants must meet. Our family reunion policy makes it clear that there is a discretion—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out—to grant visas outside of the Immigration Rules, which caters for extended family members where there are compelling compassionate factors. If children are not able to sponsor their parents or family members to join them under refugee family reunion routes, they may be eligible to be joined in the UK via family Immigration Rules. This is in Appendix FM to the Immigration Rules, which provides a route to enter the UK as the parent of a child who is in the UK. A condition of that is that the child must be under the age of 18, and either British or settled or in the UK with limited leave under Appendix EU. Parent applicants in the UK can seek permission to stay with a child who is under 18, either British or settled, or who has at least seven continuous years of residence in the UK, preceding the application, where it would be unreasonable to expect the child to leave.

In all applications from parents, where the applicant is unable to meet the suitability and eligibility requirements, Home Office decision-makers will consider any exceptional circumstances that would mean a refusal may have breached the right of the applicant or the affected family members to a family life in accordance with Article 8 of the ECHR.

To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about unmarried partners who have the option of getting married or having a civil partnership if they have not cohabited, the department will have regard to that. I hope that provides some comfort.

I have already addressed the simplification of the Immigration Rules, which is being conducted. The work is under way, but I am afraid these matters are complicated and will take time. The Government can see the merit of what was said, so I do not accept the general thrust of the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we have rejected everything the committee has said.

I turn to the comments made about the burden of family migration policies on the public purse and the impact on local authorities. The final local government finance settlement for 2023-24 makes up to £59.7 billion available for local government in England, which is an increase in core spending power of up to £5.1 billion, or £9.4 billion in cash terms. The Home Office provides a range of services to support local authorities to understand and discharge their duties, in line with their legal obligations in respect of immigration, including the NRPF contract, local partnership managers and on-site immigration officials.

In closing, I repeat my earlier thanks to all who have contributed today and to the committee for its work in producing the report. Family migration is a complex topic and it is right that our approach balance the interests of those coming to this country with those of the British people. The Government remain committed to delivering improvements and reform across the board, including on family migration, as we strive to deliver a fairer, more effective and more sustainable immigration system.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

Given the time, can the Minister write to me on the specific question I asked about the Afghan scheme?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Yes, and forgive me; I meant to say that. Of course I will.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Can the Minister write to me with the current figures for applications outstanding and the average length of time spent waiting?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Of course.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Can the Minister write to me about the questions I asked?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Maybe. No, of course I will.

Climate Change: Migration

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and add my congratulations to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on securing this important debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, this debate is reminiscent of certain debates that we had during the passage of the Illegal Migration Act—in particular that of the most reverend Primate’s amendments in respect of a 10-year plan on migration. As a result of that experience, we all know that these issues are particularly live and pertinent to many Members across the House, including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.

The topics that are discussed are hugely complex, and it seems difficult to do justice to them in the short time that the House has had to do so, but I will endeavour to answer the questions raised. Let me say in opening that this question as posed by the noble and right reverend Lord will find answers only in co-operation—he is absolutely right to say that. That is co-operation between countries, between government departments, and between business and civil society.

The right reverend prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, who spoke on the impact of climate change on the world’s poorest, made an important point. We need to consider our policies and action related to climate change and migration strategically and in the round—with regard to our trade policy, development policy and wider international engagement. The tone of our debate on this subject, like our response as a country, must be tempered and careful.

Throughout the evidence that we have on the links between climate change and migration, there remain many variables and possibilities. Obviously, we are increasing our understanding of this area. We do not and must not make policy in this country according to mob rule. Selfish protestors who disrupt people as they go about their lives do nothing to address the cause of climate change. The reality is that climate change is already influencing where people live and how they move. Where this is the case, the effects of climate change are generally just one factor in a wider range of immediate considerations.

In the Question before the House today, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes the distinction between the EU and other partners. I understand why he has set out the Question in that way. His interest is in the proximity of and dialogue with near neighbours. There is value in this view. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester rightly noted the importance of working with our European and wider partners. However, I respectfully urge that we approach this with a wider lens. This is not to denigrate in any way the importance of our European relationships. We must also place the upstream source at the forefront of how we think about this issue. This grasp of the global situation is representative of how we, as a Government, are approaching the dialogue on this subject.

With this in mind, I can inform the House that the United Kingdom is involved with a range of international conversations and discussions around climate change, as identified by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in his speech. They include three international bodies: the Global Compact for Migration and its associated events, namely the International Migration Review Forum and regional reviews; the Global Forum for Migration and Development; and the International Dialogue on Migration. A further joint workshop between the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Inter-Governmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees was also held earlier this year in June.

At the International Migration Review Forum in May 2022, the United Kingdom Government attended side events on the climate migration nexus. They supplied a speaker at a Guatemala-organised side event on this topic. The international community clearly needs to work together to make sure that any resultant migratory movements are done in a safe, orderly and regular fashion. They must work to benefit both the countries of origin and of destination, as well as those people affected and on the move.

To help develop our understanding of the challenges and potential solutions arising from this issue, the United Kingdom has funded research on the relationship between climate change and human mobility. We are using this and the growing body of evidence from around the world to support the development of a comprehensive policy position on climate migration. Evidence shows that climate extremes and environmental degradation are often amplifiers of other principal migration drivers—economic, social and political. We should recognise the complexity of the causes of migration and the links between them, as well as seek to provide people with options for sustainable livelihoods.

I turn to the specifics. A rapid evidence assessment published by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2021 made a number of important findings. First, climate-related shocks can contribute to increases and decreases in migration but there is no upward trend in weather shock-related migration. Secondly, there is little evidence of existing impacts of long-term climatic and related changes on migration. Thirdly, there is strong evidence that adaptations to climate-related shocks and hazards can reduce migration pressures but maladaptation contributes to displacement and migration. Fourthly, there is strong evidence that perceptions and narratives of climate change, weather shocks and local environments affect migration practices and decisions. Fifthly, poverty-affected individuals and households are particularly affected by both migration pressures and barriers to movement, while young people are the most likely to move in response to climatic pressures. Finally, there are no rigorous global estimates of the number of people who have been displaced or are migrating in response to weather shocks or climate change; high-end projections of future climate-related migration are not considered credible.

I turn to a number of other points raised by noble Lords. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans noted how some of the most acute impacts of climate change are falling on people in Africa. Mindful of this, only this month in Nairobi at the Africa Climate Summit, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the Minister for Development and Africa announced £49 million for new finance and resilience projects and reaffirmed £11.6 billion of funding for an international climate finance pledge. This reflects the degree of seriousness that this Government place on the issue and underlines the UK’s commitment, with the international community, to the issue in Africa. More widely, the UK is the third-largest donor of the UN Migration Multi-Partner Trust Fund, with over £4.2 million pledged. I hope that this answers the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in relation to the Government’s presence at the summit.

As to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, about the concept of climate refugees, the 1951 convention, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, does not recognise climate change and it therefore cannot be used as a justification for grant of refugee status. The UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration caution against the use of language around climate refugees. Our priority must be to focus our wider efforts on migration and climate change rather than this.

I conclude by reiterating the need for a temperate tone and for co-operation. This issue affects us all. Harmonious working is therefore vital. I reassure the House that His Majesty’s Government will continue to work with all their internal component parts—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked—and with all our international partners in Europe and beyond to ensure that our response to climate-driven migration is evidenced and effective and, as I was rightly exhorted from the Bishops’ Benches, to ensure that it is fair both to the individuals displaced and of course to the British public.