Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Sahota
Main Page: Lord Sahota (Labour - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Lord Sahota's debates with the Home Office
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I wholeheartedly agree with the Government’s aim and the purpose of the Bill, which is primarily to stop people crossing the channel from France in dangerous boats. Since this route was exploited by the criminal gangs a few years ago, almost 100 men, women and children have tragically lost their lives attempting to cross the English Channel. In the Mediterranean Sea, thousands have perished over the years trying to reach Europe. These organised criminal gangs, who profit from the desperation of vulnerable people, must be stopped by whatever means necessary.
This is one of the most tragic aspects of our time: people fleeing poor countries, seeking a better life for their families, and escaping authoritarian and corrupt regimes. I speak as the son of an immigrant who, in the 1940s, left his country and moved from place to place before finally settling in the UK, in 1957. I know first hand the feelings of these refugees—I cannot help but feel empathy for them.
This refugee crisis is not new. Throughout history, thousands have fled their own country to escape prosecution and mistreatment. It saddens me to say that some politicians in Europe have used the misfortune and desperation of these refugees to advance their own political careers. They have stirred up hatred and xenophobia to win votes, rather than showing understanding and compassion. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have used these unfortunate people as a political football, instead of treating them with dignity and humanity.
However, as I have often said in your Lordships’ House, the UK remains one of the most tolerant, inclusive and welcoming countries in the world. I am proud that my father settled here and that his great-grandchildren are now part of Great British society.
Returning to the substantive issue of this debate, while I support the core intent of the Bill, we must be mindful of unintended consequences. As noble Lords know, I am not a solicitor—I usually leave such matters to the great legal minds in your Lordships’ House. However, here are some of my observations as a layman and long-standing supporter of Amnesty International and a staunch believer in the European Convention on Human Rights. I always place great value on the human rights and well-being of the underdog. I therefore ask the Minister to clarify some of these points.
One of my concerns is that some of the new offences in the Bill could inadvertently criminalise genuine asylum seekers and deter victims of modern slavery from coming forward. Does the Bill comply with the UK’s international obligation under the 1951 refugee convention regarding the rights of the individual seeking asylum?
Secondly, what consideration has been given to expanding safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers as an alternative or complementary approach to the enforcement measures in the Bill? Thirdly, what provisions are there to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are not inadvertently disqualified from protection or deterred from engaging with authority due to the new immigration offences or powers? Fourthly, does the Bill ensure robust judicial oversight of detention decisions, and does it prevent the disproportionate detention of the individual seeking asylum?
Finally, can the Minister assure me that the sharing of customs information by HMRC and the sharing of trailer registration information from the DVLA to catch organised immigration criminals will not result in a snoopers’ charter affecting the wider public?
While we all want to stop the ruthless smuggler gangs and save lives, we must also uphold our proud tradition of compassion and human rights. A just and human approach alongside firm border security is the only way forward.