Stuart C McDonald
Main Page: Stuart C McDonald (Scottish National Party - Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East)Department Debates - View all Stuart C McDonald's debates with the Home Office
Monday 27th March 2023
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 27 March 2023 - (27 Mar 2023)
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Do we support international human rights protections or do we not? Are we steadfast in our adherence to the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and other international treaties we have signed up to, or are we not? To me, it is extraordinary that those simple questions are even apparently subject to debate, but those simple questions are precisely what this appalling Bill is asking of us, including in the clauses we are debating today.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been clear that the Bill breaches the refugee convention. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights has written to us all today to warn it is:
“essential that Members of Parliament…prevent legislation that is incompatible with the UK’s international obligations being passed”.
Our view is that, because the Bill rides roughshod over international human rights law, it should be scrapped entirely. Short of that, the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and colleagues try to restore at least some level of respect for international law.
This is not only an abstract issue of international law. This is about the Afghan lieutenant we read about in The Independent on Sunday yesterday, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition supervisor as being a “patriot to his nation”. Now he is in a hotel and threatened with removal to Rwanda. It is about LGBT people fleeing outrageous criminal laws in Uganda, whose Parliament last week voted for further draconian legislation, imposing endless imprisonment and even death sentences on LGBT people, as well as on those who do not report them to the police or even rent a room to them. This is all about trafficking victims, victims of torture and many more vulnerable people. The question is: are we committed to meeting our international obligations to those people? For me and my SNP colleagues, the answer must clearly be yes, but the Bill says no.
We therefore absolutely oppose clause 49 and the Government’s attempt to undermine the role of the Court of Human Rights. Clause 49 empowers the Home Secretary to ignore, and even to compel our courts to ignore, interim measures from the Court. It is said to be a placeholder clause, but here we are debating it with only a select bunch of Conservative Back Benchers apparently any the wiser as to what the Government’s intentions are with respect to it. The clause, as drafted, is totally unacceptable, but so, too, is the way the Government are treating Parliament. As the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights states in his letter to us:
“interim measures issued by the European Court of Human Rights, and their binding nature, are integral to ensuring that member states fully and effectively fulfil their human rights obligations”.
We therefore believe the clause should be taken out, or that either our amendment 119 or amendment 122, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), should be supported to ensure that power is used consistently with the convention. The Prime Minister should stop dancing to the tune of the anti-ECHR minority. He should have the guts to put international human rights before internal party management.
I turn next to safe legal routes, which many amendments and new clauses understandably address. The lack of them and, in the case of the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, their poor and slow implementation, is clearly a contributor to irregular arrivals. Expanding them would help to tackle that issue, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) eloquently set out. Clause 51, as it stands, is completely inadequate. It provides for a limit not to be exceeded, rather than providing a target to aim for, and it allows the Home Secretary, instead of Parliament, to set the definition of “safe legal route”. Our amendment 179 and related amendments replace the cap with a target, and a longer-term target too, and seek to improve Parliament’s role in setting that goal and holding the Home Secretary to account for her efforts to meet it. We support other new clauses and amendments that seek to achieve similar aims. We support the various new clauses that highlight particular safe legal routes, such as the humanitarian travel permit, safe passage visa schemes, refugee family reunion and Dublin-style safe legal routes for children in the EU. The key point is, as has been said, that these routes should be a priority and an urgent part of the overall response, not an afterthought to be looked at a little way down the line.
On the remaining clauses relating to legal proceedings, frankly, most of the provisions in the Bill essentially dehumanise people who seek protection here, so that no matter what horrors they have endured, their individual circumstances are to be ignored and their ability to access rights and protections set out in international treaties is to be decimated. Instead, they are to be detained, locked up and either removed or left in permanent limbo. The clauses on legal proceedings buttress that regime by seeking to snuff out the ability of anyone to get to a courtroom to challenge what is going on before their removal takes place.
Stuart C. McDonald
I notice the Minister is listening very carefully indeed.
Why is there a “compelling evidence” requirement? More importantly, is that not totally inconsistent with the test of real risk? That is the point of amendment 83. The danger is that even a probability of “serious and irreversible harm” will not be enough because of the type of evidence that can realistically be provided in the ludicrously tight timescale provided for.
On timeframes, we have various amendments to challenge the time periods that have been formally set out by the Government. The notion that eight days is enough time for an application is for the birds, as we know from the chaotic processes used during previous attempts to remove people to Rwanda, when many who were served notice barely understood what was happening. Language barriers, difficulties in access to solicitors and legal aid, the requirements of prescribed forms and demands for compelling evidence in the application mean that eight days will never happen. Those processes give rise to the risk that even those who could in theory make a challenge will miss out unjustly.
On that very important point, can the Minister provide clarity on how he will ensure that legal advice is accessible and, importantly, what his Government’s position is on the availability of legal aid? Those are hugely important issues that are not really touched on in the Bill.
Given the ludicrously restricted timeframes, the restrictions on “out of time” claims in clause 44 are frightening. Our amendments from amendment 101 onward seek to challenge that. This time “compelling evidence” of a “compelling reason” for missing the eight-day deadline is required. What on earth does that mean? Is an inability to understand the notice, language difficulties or the impossibility of finding a solicitor sufficient? More fundamentally, are the Government saying it is okay to remove someone who is certainly going to face “serious and irreversible harm” just because they were a few hours late with the paperwork and did not have a decent excuse for that? It makes absolutely no sense.
The seven-day timeframe for appeals to be lodged in clause 47 is equally absurd for all those reasons. Again, how will access to legal advice and legal aid be ensured? Who did the Government consult when putting together that challenging timeframe? Why have the Government chosen to bypass the first-tier tribunal? Why are the Government suggesting using first-tier employment law judges to assess difficult issues of removal and serious harm?
Some will have an even more difficult route to challenge a refusal if the Home Secretary decides that a claim is “clearly unfounded”. The clauses do not seem to make any sense. If, as seems to be the case, to make a valid application someone needs to provide compelling evidence of harm, it is difficult to see how any valid application containing such compelling evidence can be deemed clearly unfounded. Going beyond that, the grounds for appeal to the upper-tier tribunal are, again, objectionably difficult. Just to get permission to appeal, compelling evidence of serious or irreversible harm is required, assessed on the papers with no further right of appeal. Our amendments to clause 43 seek to rectify that.
We object to the Bill instructing the tribunal how to do its work, in particular how to make assessments of fact. Judges—not the Secretary of State—should determine what new matters can be considered, and what evidence and facts are relevant to their decisions. Our amendments to clauses 46 and 47 and various other clauses seek to protect the independence of the tribunal. We object strongly to the ouster clause in clause 48, in particular the restrictions on the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Amendments 100 and 108 seek to challenge restrictions on onward rights of appeal. These are serious and significant issues of profound importance. Removing the oversight of the courts is unacceptable and unconstitutional. We had a well-developed and functioning system of appeals and judicial oversight. The Government should stop dismantling it. Instead, the Bill will leave most people seeking to assert their rights able to do so only after they have been removed. The notion that such challenges can be successfully undertaken from thousands of miles away is absurd.
The fundamental question is, what happens if someone is successful in making a suspensive case? All that clause 45 states is that they cannot be removed; it does not allow them access to the asylum process or any other assessment of their case. They, like tens of thousands of others who cannot be removed simply because there is nowhere to remove them to, will be left in limbo—a limbo that is disastrous for the taxpayer but life-destroying for the individuals involved. A desperate outcome from a desperate Bill.
Finally, although we support almost all the other amendments and new clauses tabled by Opposition Members, we have concerns about new clauses 23 and 25. New clause 23 would require the Secretary of State to use her broad discretion to put in place a fast-track asylum procedure for so-called “low grant-rate countries”. It contains an amazingly wide definition of a low grant-rate country, which would include nationalities where 49% of applicants had successfully sought asylum.
New clause 25 has aspects that are fine, but crucial to what it tries to do are co-operation agreements for the removal of people who have had claims declared inadmissible. However, there is no definition of “inadmissible” separate from the definition in clauses 2 and 4. That goes to the heart of all of the problems with the Bill. We will continue to listen carefully to what is said about those new clauses, but we are concerned that they need further work.
In short, we oppose every aspect of the Bill. We object to the outrageous timeframe for its consideration and to the lack of impact assessment before we debate it. Our amendments try to mitigate some of its worst aspects but, ultimately, it remains an unlawful Bill completely and utterly beyond repair.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendment 132, which appears in my name. Together with amendments 131, 133 and 134, it has been drawn up with the express purpose of ensuring that our legislation does what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly said should be our priority: stopping small boats and the evil trade that sustains them.
We are fortunate to live in one of the greatest countries on earth. Unless we believe in a literally unlimited right of immigration, in any sane legal order, we in the United Kingdom must have the ability to effectively control our borders. It is only by having such control that we can maintain democratic consent for both legal migration and our system for allowing asylum to those in need, as we have done rightly and generously for those fleeing the repression of the Chinese state in Hong Kong, the bestiality of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the cruelty of Putin’s war in Ukraine. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration said from the Dispatch Box, almost half a million humanitarian visas have been granted by this country since 2015, of which 50,000 came from existing global safe and legal routes.
At the moment, we do not exercise the control to which I alluded a moment ago. Contrary to what Opposition Members may pretend, no amount of operation with the French or investment in our infrastructure at the border—welcome though those things are—can deter people attempting the crossing in the tens of thousands each year.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
I do not want to detain the Committee for too long, so let me turn to the key points that have been raised tonight. First, with respect to the powerful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others relating to the important question of injunctive relief, rule 39, and how we as a sovereign Parliament handle ourselves and ensure that we secure our borders, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions and I recognise the positive intention of the amendments they have tabled. I am keen to give them an undertaking that I will engage with them and other colleagues who are interested in these points ahead of Report.
We are united in our determination that the Bill will be robust, that it will be able to survive the kind of egregious and vexatious legal challenges we have seen in the past, and that it will enable us to do the job and remove illegal immigrants to safe third countries such as Rwanda. I would add that the Bill has been carefully drafted in collaboration with some of the finest legal minds, and we do believe that it enables us to do the job while complying with our international law obligations. However, we are going to engage closely with colleagues and ensure that the final Bill meets the requirements of all those on our side of the Chamber.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you for allowing me to speak again, Mr Evans.
What we have had today is an absolute disgrace of a debate. The timetabling of this really important Bill has been absolutely shocking. Whatever side of the debate we are on, we must understand that it is of incredible constitutional significance. There are questions here about whether we are breaking some absolutely fundamental treaty obligations, yet we have been treated to nothing more than a few slogans and not a single effort to address any of the amendments we tabled in good faith. Those amendments were not just tabled off my own bat, but in consultation with the Law Society, the Law Society of Scotland, Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—lots of respected organisations that deserve to have their voice heard here and deserve to be treated with respect by this Government. The whole process has been an absolute embarrassment to Parliament. Where is the impact assessment we should have had before the Bill? That is just as disgraceful as the lack of respect for the amendments tabled today.
What we have had today is not a serious debate. We have had slogans and dog-whistle rhetoric. We have a Government who have shown that they are all slogans and absolutely no respect for Parliament.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am anticipating four Divisions and I will try to assist the House as to when they are likely to happen. First, we go to Sir William Cash.