Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from our discussions that we will continue to work with him and others to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I will come to part 4 later in my remarks, but let me expand on exactly where we are seeing the problems and anomalies within the system. Of course we want to close them down, because modern slavery is absolutely abhorrent, but there are key elements that we also need to address.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I cannot let the comment from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just pass. He made the point that people who seek asylum here are always fleeing their country because of persecution. I have many concerns about the immigration Bills that have been passed in this place, many by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister. It is naive to think that the people coming through irregular routes are only seeking asylum for reasons of persecution. There are a large number who are seeking asylum based purely on economic migration. Is that not one reason why separating out regular and irregular people is such an important change in the way that we are pursuing the legislation?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right, and that is where the system becomes conflated and there is no separation between the two. He is absolutely right to make that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Welcome to the Chair. Edmund Burke said:

“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”

Restoring justice and order to the chaotic and confusing asylum system broadcasts that a line in the sand has been drawn that will not fade away with every new boat that arrives on the beach. The Bill is a testament to the principle that laws must be just and be seen to be; otherwise, we can hardly call them law at all.

According to poll after poll, the vast majority of the public see illegal immigration as a serious problem. Is it any wonder when there were 16,000 illegal entrants into Britain last year, with 8,500 on boats? Those are the ones we know about. This year alone, 7,000 have arrived on those boats.

[Richard Fuller]

Does my right hon. Friend not think that somehow turning the debate simply into, “Everyone who claims asylum must have a legitimate claim and everyone who is against it must be racist” does not help in trying to get to the just law that he is talking about?

[Sir John Hayes]

Absolutely, it does not, nor is it just to pillory the public and those who speak for them when they argue that we should enforce the law and that migration should be controlled. As a number of hon. Members have said, legal migration has been out of control for some time, and illegal migration, by its very nature, is both unjust and unfair because it breaks the law. It breaches that principle that people who arrive here and pursue legal routes are doing the right thing and that those who do not are simply doing the wrong thing and should be deported. That is what the public think, and that is what we should say very clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

For many of my constituents, rightly or wrongly, the success of the Bill depends on whether it stops or clearly limits three persistent and frustrating problems with our immigration and border controls. First, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the use of the channel crossing by boat or truck to make a claim for asylum; secondly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the filing, over many years, of speculative further asylum claims—frequently on specious grounds—that clog up our system, crowd out legitimate claims, and generally make a mockery of our legal processes; and thirdly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the opportunity for cherry-picking that leads people to make an asylum claim in the UK rather than in the one or many other safe countries through which they travel.

It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister to bear in mind that it is on those bases that my constituents will judge the success or failure of this measure, not the rhetoric that accompanies it. To me, however—and, I would say, to some other Conservative Members—there are further aspects that are important. Let me pick up the challenge from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), on the views of those on this side of the House, because there are aspects of nuance and detail that I think it important to bring out.

First, if the assessment system is to be quicker, it is important for the Government to ensure that claimants have much better access to legal advice. Secondly, if the system is to work effectively, there needs to be greater availability of counselling, psychiatric and other medical assessments. Thirdly, we should once and for all have a culture of getting to the truth, rather than the culture of disbelief that has for too many years permeated the Home Office asylum system.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am intervening for a specific reason. What is actually happening is that the truth is being obscured by repeated claims which many of the people whom my hon. Friend is describing are encouraged to lodge by the unscrupulous lawyers who were given such a plaudit by the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend speaks very wise words.

Let me just say to Opposition Members that there is no monopoly on compassion, and that it does not mean saying that the system must apply to everyone in a particular process. Compassion applies to an individual claim. The importance of our system is that we get to that individual and do not lose sight of him or her. In a previous life as a Member of Parliament, I spoke in a debate on another immigration Bill and bemoaned the lack of compassion in our immigration system. It was encouraging to hear the Home Secretary use the word “compassion” so often, and to hear stories of compassion from other Conservative Members, whether they were about how a council looks after the people who are claiming asylum or about people’s feelings about the system. So there is no monopoly on compassion here, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in finding ways in which we can make it work more deeply in the Bill.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, particularly for his stance on immigration detention and his campaigning for time limits on it. The Home Secretary talks about compassion, but at the end of the day—I have said this a few times, but people do not seem even to acknowledge it—the Bill would criminalise people it recognises as refugees, strip them of their family reunion rights, strip them of recourse to public funds, limit the amount of leave that they are allowed here and never let them even apply for settlement. That is not remotely compassionate. We are talking about refugees.

[Richard Fuller]

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman talking about specifics, because again there was a bit of broad generalisation there. However, one thing that I will say for SNP Members is that at least they have some ideas, whereas 10 minutes into the shadow Home Secretary’s speech he said, “Let me tell you what the Labour party will do”—and in the rest of his speech he came up with one idea, which was to set a legal target for how quickly asylum claims get processed. Is that it? Is that all the Labour party has to offer? I see that it is, so let us work with the SNP.

Let me tell the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East where I think we can work together. Let us have some compassion for victims of slavery; there is plenty of support on the Conservative Benches for that. Let us have some compassion in how we treat children in the Bill; there is lots of support on both sides of the House for that. Let us have some compassion for how the particular issues of women will be affected by the separation of regular from irregular routes. And let us have some compassion, Minister, by ending indefinite detention once and for all.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

The fact that by far the greatest number of referrals to the NRM last year were of British nationals raises the question of why these provisions are in a Bill about immigration at all. The way part 5 has been drafted means that some of the most vulnerable people, who have been subject to the worst possible trauma, will face the greatest barriers to support, protection and justice, and I hope that hon. Members have heard our concerns and will support our amendments.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 39, standing in my name and the names of the Chairs of the Procedure Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. For a variety of reasons, none of those colleagues can be with us today, and I feel that I am a poor substitute for them in making these points—

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Richard Fuller]

With great modesty, I shall.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Can I just reassure my hon. Friend that, by the very fact that he is speaking to this new clause, he is more than a substitute and that he is on the side of right?

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One other aspect of this is that it has given me the opportunity to have a fresh look at an area of legislation that I have not been as deeply involved in as he has. I might therefore raise some concerns that the Minister might not get from other quarters, with a keen focus on the legislation dealing with modern-day slavery.

I wish also speak in support of amendment 3, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will be pleased to hear him later expressing his support for my new clause, as I also hope the SNP will. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her indication of support. The reason I say that is that my new clause has not been selected for separate Division, and it is therefore important that this House sends a clear and unequivocal cross-party message to the other House, where this issue can perhaps be looked at anew.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure that the House will be on tenterhooks to know, so I can put it out of its misery and tell the hon. Member that I will be more than happy to support his new clause.

[Richard Fuller]

I am very pleased to be off those tenterhooks, although I am never very sure what tenterhooks are. They do not sound very comfortable.

New clause 39 provides the Government with an opportunity to achieve their objectives but on a more considerably secure legal footing than their current proposals would permit. The new clause has been informed by the concerns raised by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton. Clause 62 currently seeks to disqualify potential victims of trafficking from the protections afforded under the national referral mechanism. Those protections are important not just as a manifestation of the mercy of our country towards those whose lives have been made wretched by the exploitations of others but to enable more effective prosecution of the perpetrators of such trafficking. Consideration of exclusion from these protections therefore requires careful assessment of the consequences for both those factors. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, it should be considered in the context of our country’s leading position in international law on human trafficking. That is a position that we should not give up at all lightly.

My first concern with clause 62 as proposed is to ask: where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that access to the national referral mechanism is being abused, and where is the evidence from the Government on the impact of their proposal? My second concern with clause 62 is that it does not appear to address vexatious or unwarranted claims regarding access to the national referral mechanism. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green when he was speaking to his new clause. This is the wrong piece of legislation to do what the Government hope is the right thing, but which many of us fear will make the situation worse rather than better. In the absence of evidence for why this is a logical measure to adopt, I am perplexed as to why clause 62 has been drafted in this way.

My concern is also that subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) provide a very low bar for disqualification based on criminal sentencing. For those, like me, who are not familiar with modern slavery, it may sound odd that there is public interest in supporting people who have committed crimes either here or, more likely, overseas that carry a 12-month sentence—that is the bar—but that public interest is the same public interest as we have in trying to reach the main perpetrators in county lines drug gangs or serious fraud cases.

The public interest is in enabling sufficient evidence to be collated to bring successful prosecutions against the co-ordinators of those crimes, which is where I fear this clause falls short in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f). I see good reasons in the other subsections and paragraphs for why clause 62 makes sense, but subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) are clearly very different. I am interested in understanding the Minister’s logic.

Although this is an immigration Bill, clause 62 will largely apply to people already here, including British citizens, who currently make up the majority of victims. Because it refers to the national referral mechanism, most British victims will fall foul of this clause. The data suggests that the vast majority of British victims would fail under the Bill’s disqualifying remit, as the majority of cases involving British victims involve criminal exploitation. Even those who fall under labour or sexual exploitation often participate in criminal activities as part of their exploitation and so may end up being “unworthy” of support. I fear that is not what we are trying to do, and it should not be in an immigration Bill.

Another concern that has been raised with me is that there are currently significant difficulties in bringing prosecutions for modern slavery. As previous speakers have mentioned, with approximately 10,000 potential victims of modern slavery identified in the UK last year and only 238 convictions, it is clear that the process is at risk of being overloaded.

How does it help for there to be new additional legal requirements to investigate the criminal history of each and every potential victim who is seeking access to the national referral mechanism? How on earth will that help? Have we not been here before, more than a decade ago? I do not like to refer back to the bad old days of immigration under Labour, but what a complete mess Labour made of it. The lives of many of my former constituents in Bedford, and the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members here, were ruined by the Home Office’s processes, and those processes are still not where they need to be. With this new provision on access to the national referral mechanism, the Home Office is at it again, making it more complicated, making it more difficult and, ultimately, making a rod for its own back.

New clause 39 would remove children from the scope of clause 62, which is important. We do not want children to fall foul of other rules and regulations, certainly when it comes to their criminal record or otherwise. Will the Minister address that directly?

The new clause preserves the Government’s power to remove individuals from the UK who pose

“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.

We understand the Government want to make these changes, and there may be good reason for doing so, but let us set the bar higher and let us make it more pertinent so that we do not block the whole system and unduly use immigration law to address modern slavery. That seems a sensible change to make.

New clause 39 would change the wording of the Bill so that a person who claims to have been trafficked improperly will not be treated as having acted in bad faith, which is more in line with the trafficking convention. When a Government seek to conflate effective modern slavery legislation a little too much with immigration law, it is important that we refer to the founding principles of that first set of legislation. Let us not be wishy-washy by saying we can make it up as we go along. Let us not import one schedule from one Act and say it will work fine in this Bill, which seems sloppy. It seems much better to place it more firmly and resolutely in international conventions and other aspects of international law.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Fuller Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend, who speaks with real experience given his time as a distinguished local authority leader, raises an important point. Of course these ethical considerations are very important in relation to all this. I am acutely mindful of the enormous burden that age assessment has placed on local authorities over a number of years. Some local authorities do this work very well, but the situation is patchy. The capacity that exists, and the speed, thoroughness and ease with which this work is done, depends on where you are in the country. It is important that we are developing this national resource to help with some of this work so as to relieve some of the burdens. One thing I will certainly want the national age assessment board to do is reflect on the best practice that exists in local authorities around the country and bring together that model of best practice to make sure that we get this right.

Finally, the amendment would lower the current standard of proof for social worker age assessments from the “balance of probabilities”, which is long established in case law, to a “reasonable degree of likelihood”. Lowering this standard would require social workers to accept individuals as children whom on balance they believe to be adults. For the House’s benefit, it is important to note that there are safeguarding considerations that flow in either direction. Children being placed in adult settings is clearly not acceptable, and it is not good for adults to be placed in children’s settings either. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.

I will turn to consider the amendments relating to modern slavery, beginning with amendments 23 and 24, which would omit from the Bill the clause that deals with late compliance with a slavery or trafficking information notice. I understand the motivations behind the concerns expressed by the noble Lords who tabled these amendments. This Government are completely committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and tackling perpetrators, but removing the clause would mean that we were unable to clearly set out the consequences of not complying with the slavery or trafficking information notice, which would not help decision makers or individuals involved in the process. It would also create a lack of transparency and certainty.

It is clear on the face of the Bill that where there is good reason for late compliance, there will be no damage to credibility. We have given repeated assurances that, in keeping with the approach taken in our current statutory guidance, “good reasons” will allow for things such as individual vulnerabilities or the effect traumatic events and coercive control can have on people’s ability to accurately recall, share, or recognise such events. I expect that work to be carried out through a trauma-informed approach, which will ensure that decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider “good reasons” without prejudging what that should cover. We therefore cannot agree to the amendments.

Amendment 25 would remove from the Bill the clause that deals with disqualification from modern slavery protections where an individual is a threat to public order or has claimed to be a victim in bad faith. It would replace the clause with a new clause that does not provide a definition for public order and, as a result, the Government would remain unable to operationalise the public order disqualification. That would mean we were unable to remove individuals who had committed serious criminal offences or who posed a risk to national security, despite it being in line with our international obligations to do so.

The Government have been clear that the disqualification will not be applied in a blanket manner. Rather, following a referral to the national referral mechanism, where an individual meets the public order definition or has claimed in bad faith, the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of each case will be carefully considered. It is our view that amendment 25 does not fulfil the aims of the original clause and would not protect the modern slavery system from those who act in bad faith, nor protect our communities from those who present a threat to public order or a risk to national security.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Minister said that in those cases, there would be an assessment of the risk to public order. Has he made an assessment of what proportion of the cases, say in 2020, would have had these individual assessments based on the criteria presented in the Bill? He may not have that information to hand, but if he could reply to the House on that later, it would be helpful.

[Tom Pursglove]

I recognise entirely the interest that my hon. Friend shows in these matters. If I may, I will take that point away, ponder it and then comment on it specifically when I wind up the debate. I am grateful for the question, and I am happy to revisit that point.

For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot agree to amendment 25. Amendment 26 would remove the clause that provides leave to remain for victims of modern slavery or human trafficking and replace it with a new clause. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and to Lord McColl for their work in this area. We agree that confirmed victims should be granted leave where necessary to assist them in their physical and psychological recovery from harm caused by exploitation, to seek compensation in respect of their exploitation or to assist the authorities with investigations or prosecutions in respect of that exploitation.

The Government have already committed to providing all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support with appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months, where necessary. That will be set out in guidance, but the amendment does not make the critical link between relevant exploitation and the grant of leave. That means that someone could be granted leave to remain on the basis of personal circumstances unconnected to their exploitation, or to pursue an unrelated compensation claim or to assist an unrelated investigation. For those reasons, we are not able to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

To maintain the hon. Lady’s record of Conservative interventions that are somewhat supportive, is not what she has just said about that 48% the answer to the question I posed to my hon. Friend the Minister? Under the Bill as presented, the Home Office will be required to intervene in half the cases to make the very difficult judgment whether to exclude or not exclude. Does that not open us up to a huge amount of potential risk?

[Holly Lynch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful contribution. As we learn more about county lines gangs and their operating model, we see more and more young people and children subject to the worst exploitation by some of the vilest criminal gangs. Those are the children who are referred into the national referral mechanism. They have been encouraged, exploited and forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation, so if we are to bust those gangs they are the children we need to be looking after and supporting, and we need to support them through the prosecutions of their abusers. That 48% were criminally exploited, so we must ensure that children who have been victims of county lines gangs have protection.

It will drive more people underground and make it significantly harder for the police and authorities to investigate the perpetrators of human trafficking without the trust and support for victims in place. It also sends a clear message to perpetrators of human trafficking that they are free to exploit vulnerable people with a criminal record, knowing they will now be exempt from protection. Clause 62 represents a massive step backwards in our shared ambition to see more traffickers before the courts if it passes unamended.

Lords amendment 26 removes clause 64 and introduces a minimum 12 months leave to remain, and tailored support for all individuals who have been found to be confirmed victims of modern slavery. To demonstrate how difficult it still is to have your migration status resolved upon recognition of your exploitation, data obtained from the Home Office shows that in 2019-20 only 2%, or 17 out of 754, of child victims of modern slavery in the UK were granted discretionary leave to remain. The amendment would ensure that victims are provided with protection, support, security and stability to support their recovery in a way that promotes engagement with police and prosecutors. This proposal has gathered significant cross-party support, and I wish to highlight the work that has been conducted across the House and in the other place, specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and Lord McColl. On the Labour Benches, we strongly support the amendment. Once again, it is frustrating that the Government have failed to listen and to act on the commitments they made in earlier stages of the Bill in this place.

Just last week, the Court of Appeal rejected the Government’s attempt to overturn the High Court ruling last October that granted thousands of victims of human trafficking leave to remain. During the court case, the Government stated that they want to ensure the Government are in keeping with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings, yet that differs from what the Government have argued in both Houses. That would have a considerable impact, given that 91% of conclusive grounds decisions made in 2021 were positive, which means the Home Office deemed the individuals to be confirmed victims of modern slavery.

In conclusion, the amendments seek only to bring the Bill closer to adhering to the Government’s own guidance and best practice on supporting vulnerable victims of modern slavery and trafficking. There are others, but I have made the case for Lords amendments 24, 25, 26 and 27, all of which would significantly improve the proposed legislation before us. Lords amendment 22 also has our full support. The sector has been unified in its condemnation of the initial measures contained within that section of the Bill and there has been overwhelming evidence in support of the Lords amendments at every stage. The most recent number of referrals to the NRM was 12,727, representing a 20% increase in referrals compared to the previous year—the highest number of referrals since the NRM began. That is a deeply worrying trend and more must be done to tackle this abhorrent crime that continues to see shockingly low prosecution rates.

All sides of the House have worked to end the abhorrent crime that is modern slavery. We should be seeking to build on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and on our commitments in that legislation. We want to work with the Government, as do the sector and the victims themselves. I therefore strongly urge the Government to think again and accept the Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

[Richard Fuller]

I want the UK to be known as a place of refuge and justice as well as a place of opportunity and freedom. When examining immigration Bills over the years, I have always looked to see where there could be an issue of moral hazard in what is being proposed and the changes being made. In this Bill, my eyes were immediately drawn to clause 62 and to Lords amendment 25. The title of clause 62 is “Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”. The clause is replete with moral hazards in whatever actions the Government might take. As it happens, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, but I am also not sure that the Lords amendment is quite right.

My request to the Minister, who is ably managing the Bill, is to continue the conversation with their lordships on this provision, because of the risks of moral hazard. For example, is it really right that we should continue to include taking away this protection from children? Is it right that we should continue to have a provision that someone who in their past has undertaken a crime under duress should be liable to the protections being taken away? The Minister has argued that it is important to define this, so that the issues of public order can be applied, and I see some relevance there, but why is it important to rely so heavily on information that relates to an individual’s past, rather than take into account their circumstances and the potential risk they pose today? That balance has not been struck correctly.

The noble Lords Coaker and Randall in the other place sought to correct that by trying to draw a tighter definition about the risks, stating that there has to be

“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat”,

but I think they have overcooked it a little bit. It is quite a lot to say that all those criteria have to apply. Between the Government’s present criteria, which rely too much on an individual’s past, and the Lords amendment, which is drawn a bit too tightly about where these protections should be applied, there is scope for the Government to find some ground for compromise. I certainly hope so.

[Mr Carmichael]

I shall of necessity be very brief. First, I would like to place on record my appreciation of my colleagues in the other place, in particular Lord Paddick, Baroness Hamwee, Baroness Ludford and Baroness Suttie.

I find myself somewhat perplexed about the measures relating to modern slavery because, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, the Conservative party has until recently had a really good story to tell on modern slavery. It started with the work of Anthony Steen. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and in this context I pay particular tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I saw how, as Home Secretary, she drove this agenda in Government. Believe me, the Home Secretary in the coalition Government was not always an immediate ally for Liberal Democrat Ministers. She had a particular knack for generating tension, not just within the coalition but occasionally within her own party, but she really understood the importance of this issue and drove it forward in a way that I think the party should be proud of. I am afraid that what I see in relation to Lords amendments 24 to 26, coming from people such as Lord Randall—someone with whom, again, I was pleased to work during his time in this House—flies in the face of that work. It undermines the tremendous progress this country and the Conservative party have made.