Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(za) defines “illegal” and “unlawful” migration for the purpose of this Act;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another to Clause 2 in the name of Lord Hope of Craighead, seek, in the interests of legal certainty, to provide a definition of what amounts to illegal migration at the outset of this Bill.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3 and 5. It is a privilege to open the Committee stage of this important Bill. Before I come to the amendments themselves, there is one thing I wish to point out. Nothing that I may say in support of my important but relatively minor amendments is intended to undermine, or detract in any way from, the much more important and fundamental points raised by the other amendments in this group, in particular Amendments 2 and 4. I seek to reassure those in whose names those amendments stand. I am seeking to draw the Government’s attention to points raised by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, in its examination of the Bill.

Nobody can predict what shape the Bill will be in once it reaches its Third Reading, so it is as well for your Lordships to put all the cards on the table in Committee. Some will be more important than others, but one has to grasp the opportunity to put them on the table now. That is all that lies behind these amendments, and I hope that will be understood.

Amendments 1 and 5 deal with the use of words and the need for a definition. In its Short Title, the Bill refers to what it calls illegal migration, and so do the Explanatory Notes in their overview of the Bill on page 3:

“The purpose of the Bill is to create a scheme whereby anyone arriving illegally in the United Kingdom … will be promptly removed to their home country or to a safe third country to have any asylum claim processed. The Bill will build on the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 … as part of a wider strategy to tackle illegal migration”.


It says that the purpose of the Bill, among other things, is to

“deter illegal entry into the UK”.

But when it comes to the Bill itself, the language changes. The purpose of the Bill, it says, is

“to prevent and deter unlawful migration”.

The question is: does this mean the same thing as illegal migration?

The committee noted on page 1 of its report that the Bill does not define “illegal” anywhere. On the other hand, the Secretary of State’s duty to remove a person is triggered when the four conditions in Clause 2 are met. This suggests that the right way to define the expression “unlawful” for the purposes of this Bill, and what “illegal” migration for this purpose means as well, is to refer to these four conditions, which is what my Amendment 5 does. The fact is that Bills come and go, and expressions of this kind can be and are defined in different ways. Indeed, the words are interchangeable, as the language of the Explanatory Notes and the Bill itself has demonstrated.

The purpose of Amendment 5 is to make it clear that, whatever might be said in any other Bill or in any other circumstances, all one needs to know as to what makes a migration unlawful or illegal in the case of this Bill is what is in Clause 2. This is all about legal certainty and the accuracy and use of the words, which is an important constitutional principle. That is why the committee has made this important point.

Before I move Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendment 3 in my name. It would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance as to how the provisions of the Bill are to be read and given effect. This follows another recommendation by the Constitution Committee in its report on the Bill, which was prompted by what we see in Clause 1(3) and (5). Clause 1(3) says that,

“so far as it is possible to do so … this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)”.

There is an echo here, which all lawyers will recognise, of the wording of the direction about interpretation given to the courts by Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, but Clause 1(5) says that Section 3 of that Act

“does not apply in relation to provision made”

by the Bill. As the committee said, these are novel provisions and it is difficult to predict how they will be interpreted by the courts.

The Bill has been accompanied by a statement that the Minister is unable to say that the provisions of the Bill

“are compatible with the Convention rights”.

However, the Government’s ECHR memorandum on the Bill appears to be more confident that the clauses it identifies as engaging with convention rights, taken one by one,

“are capable of being applied compatibly”

with the relevant ECHR articles. As for Clause 1(5), all that the memorandum says about it is that the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act

“does not affect the Government’s assessment of compatibility of the Bill with the Convention rights as set out”

in the memorandum. The Constitution Committee says that the Government’s position on this “requires further explanation”. I am sure that will be explored much further in the other amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, with some trepidation, I want to comment on Amendments 1 and 5, tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope. Under the refugee convention, anyone approved as a refugee has never been an illegal or unlawful immigrant, however they came to the UK. To define anyone as an illegal immigrant who may subsequently be deemed a refugee surely flies in the face of the refugee convention—or that is how I read it. I am sure that my noble and learned friend has a very good riposte to what I am saying, but if by any chance he does not feel he has, he may want not to press those two amendments.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, in fact, the noble Baroness makes my point. What I am really saying is that those who are affected by the Bill want to know what it means by “unlawful”. We may not agree with it, but the Bill has a formula which is to be used and we need to know what it is. That is the purpose of a definition. I absolutely understand what the noble Baroness says about the convention, but it is about the need to understand the Bill’s use of the word “unlawful”.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

Is it not our job to ensure that the Bill does not come up against the convention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Patten, I have sat through all of this debate. I rise because my name—or, at least, a name close to mine—was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, at one point. The reason I rise with a little diffidence is that I have to catch a flight later this evening. I anticipate that I will be able to stay to the end of this debate and still make the plane, but if that turns out not to be right, I hope noble Lords will forgive me and not think that I mean any discourtesy to this Committee or those sitting in it today. I hope everybody will appreciate that is the last thing I would want.

Unlike other speakers, I cannot disavow being a lawyer. For better or worse, I am a lawyer. Therefore, let me make two short points at the outset. First, international law obligations are important. We ought to abide by them, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. I would expect Parliament not to legislate contrary to a treaty obligation unless there were absolutely compelling reasons to do so and, in those circumstances, to make that very clear. Otherwise, we should always be legislating consistently with our international law obligations.

Secondly, as I made clear from the Front Bench on a number of occasions, I support our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not always agree with the decisions of the court—I do not always agree with the decisions of our domestic courts either—but that is a separate matter. I support us being in the convention.

I will not refer to all these amendments. I start with Amendments 3 and 148, which go together. Essentially, they refer to the statement that the Secretary of State must set out as to whether the Bill is compatible with the convention rights. Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b) were put into the Human Rights Act as a political point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made this absolutely clear when the Bill was going through this House. It was to keep people’s minds focused on whether the Government could say at that time that the Bill was compliant. It was never intended to be a legal bar. There is precedent in this House. The Communications Bill is a precedent for the Government being unable to state that the Bill was compatible with convention rights. When they were challenged, the challenges failed.

One cannot draw a line between being unable to make a Section 19(1)(a) statement and the Bill being in breach of convention rights. Section 19(1)(b) is very carefully drafted, and I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who asked what it means. That statement is in the form that it is in the Bill because those are the words in Section 19(1)(b). That is what Parliament told the Minister to say. The structure is that if the Minister cannot make a Section 19(1)(a) statement, he or she makes a Section 19(1)(b) statement. Rather oddly, all that Section 19(1)(b) says is, “I can’t make Section 19(1)(a)”. Is that sensible? With respect, I do not think it is. If it were up to me, I would take out Section 19(1)(a) and Section 19(1)(b), which add more distraction than assistance. They were put in for political rather than legal reasons, and that is why the Section 19(1)(b) statement is in the form that it is in.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I recall saying once in the Appellate Committee that the courts were not bound by the statement—it has no legal effect.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right; it has no legal effect. Can I put this another way? The Minister can make a Section 19(1)(b) statement and the court can find that the Act is compatible. The Minister can make Section 19(1)(a) statement and the court can find that it is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, as I have already said, it is the Government’s view that nothing in the Bill requires the UK to breach its international obligations, whether in relation to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or any of the other listed international instruments. Of course, the United Kingdom takes compliance with its international obligations very seriously.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting and far-ranging debate. I am conscious of the time, and I am sure the Committee would not wish me to go over the ground in any detail, and I am not going to do that.

The Minister, with great respect, has not really answered many of the questions that have been raised. We will come back to this, I am sure, possibly in the next group, but certainly these questions will come back on Report and will need to be answered in much more detail. So far as my own amendments are concerned—the definition point—the Minister has pointed out that nothing hangs on these words because they do not reappear elsewhere in the Bill. I was well aware of that when I tabled the amendment, but that raises the question: why brand the actions of these people coming here as unlawful or illegal, unless, of course, they are in breach of specific legislation, which is not always the case? That illustrates the unfortunate wording of Clause 1, which we will come back to.

As far as Amendment 3 is concerned, which deals with the question of guidance, I do not think, with great respect, that the ECHR memoranda amount to the kind of guidance that is needed in a situation where access to the courts is being denied. Something more specific is needed, and that is what the amendment is driving at. Perhaps we will come back to that at some later stage. For the time being, I think the simplest thing I should do, so that we can move on, is beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German. In arguing for Amendment 4, I have already suggested why I think Clause 1 should be replaced by a clear commitment to key international obligations and a requirement that the Bill be read accordingly by officials, Ministers and the courts. However, whether or not noble Lords eventually agree with Amendment 4 down the road, Clause 1 in its current form must not stand part.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who is no longer in his place, rather smelled the rat earlier. Clause 1 is not some innocuous attempt to repeat the Long Title and extrapolate it into the body of the Bill. Instead, it is a direction to the courts to ignore international obligations in favour of the Executive’s purposes—they are executive purposes because we are part of Parliament and we have not finished with the Bill yet. Ignoring international obligations was the subject of so much of the earlier proceedings of the Committee and I do not think anybody put the problem with that better than the noble Lord, Lord Patten, with his peanut analogy, to which I am sure many people will return for a very long time.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, rather nailed it, if I may say so, by pointing to the particularly perverse nature of subsection (3). Language once crafted by the great Sir Edward Caldwell, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, for the purpose of ensuring human rights compatible interpretation via Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is now being appropriated—or, to use the eloquent language of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, subverted—for the purposes of ensuring that human rights are violated. For those reasons alone, Clause 1 should not stand part.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to come back to the points I raised in the first group, because they are the basis for my support for the argument presented by the noble Lord, Lord German. I agree with very much of what he said.

I have two points. The first is why we have to have Clause 1(1) in the Bill at all. As the Minister explained, nothing hangs on “unlawful” or “illegal”. They are tendentious words and I find it uneasy to know what they mean unless they are properly defined. The Minister was not prepared to give me a definition which tied them down to what is in the Bill. I do not see why he is not prepared to do that. His answer was one which I think any parliamentary draftsman would give him, which is that nothing hangs on them because the words do not reappear elsewhere—but that does not remove the need for a definition.

The other point comes back to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been saying about the combination of subsections (3) and (5). I find them really quite sinister. During the passage of the REUL Bill, we debated the need for parliamentary scrutiny in the face of an aggression by the Executive to reform the whole body of retained EU law without parliamentary scrutiny. Here we are again: the Executive assuming to themselves control over the convention without recourse to the courts. Indeed, there are other provisions in the Bill which exclude any kind of judicial scrutiny at all. That is taking matters a very long way and setting an uneasy precedent.

I would much rather this whole clause was taken out for these reasons. They give rise to real concerns about where this country is going, and indeed where legislation of this kind is going, in the future.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could come back to some of the questions the noble Lord failed to answer after the first debate, perhaps understandably in the desire to have a dinner break. Perhaps now he could apply himself to some of those questions.

First, could he please tell me which part of the refugee convention explicitly authorises a country to refuse to even hear the asylum request of a person who arrives on its shore? I would like to hear which bit of the convention says that that is a legitimate thing to do. The answer is not, I am afraid, to go into this rigamarole about returning to the first country they were in.

Secondly, the noble Lord said that nothing in the Bill requires the Government to take action contrary to our international legal obligations, but does he not agree that large parts of the Bill empower the Government, without further recourse to Parliament, to act contrary to our legal obligations? I would be grateful for an answer on that point too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

That is consistent with the normal practice in statute.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I might come back to the question asked by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I think the Minister said that he would write to her with examples of strained interpretation. I sat for many years on the Appellate Committee in the Supreme Court dealing with cases under the Human Rights Act, and I am not aware of any particular case where I was straining the language. I do not think I went very far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words.

I remember we were faced with a very difficult case involving two men who wanted to marry. In those days, the Marriage Act was very specific that marriage was between a man and a woman. We could have strained the language, but we did not do that; we said the provision was incompatible, which I think the Minister would recognise as a perfectly orthodox way to proceed. I think we were quite careful not to stray beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation. I would be very interested to know whether he has examples of where we really did go beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I said, I will be writing to the noble and learned Baroness, but the House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, set out various examples, including Ullah and Al-Skeini, and there are others. This has been a matter of jurisprudential development since the commencement of the Human Rights Act. It is a well-known evolution in interpretive principle, and it is that which is addressed by the provisions in this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I have co-signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile or Berriew, and that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I will make some very brief comments on both.

The principle against retrospection in statutory provisions is very long-standing and well-established because it upsets settled status and settled rights. It follows that it can, save in exceptional circumstances, operate both unfairly and so as to create legal uncertainty in the way that people conduct their affairs.

The best example of where retrospection would be appropriate is in relation to a finance Bill and Act giving effect to a Budget, with the time lapse between the two enabling people to enter into tax avoidance arrangements. But here it would be utterly impossible—certainly without any credibility—to suggest that those who are either crossing the channel or promoting that crossing unlawfully or illegally have organised their affairs, or were ever likely to organise them, on the basis of the complex provisions of this statute. I have never heard anybody suggest to the contrary. For my part, I can see absolutely no sound reason why the normal rule—which is one of fairness and certainty, as I said—should be upset in this case.

I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, because extending the definition of the third condition to include gender identity and sexual orientation brings to the forefront something which has plainly been ignored in the drafting of the Bill. There is absolutely nothing in Schedule 1 which excludes from the places to which people can be removed those LGBT people who would undoubtedly face extreme persecution, varying from sentence of imprisonment to death and assault. Raising this issue here will, I hope, direct the Government and the Bill team to a serious lacuna in the legislation.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I can be very brief. I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 39, which raises the same point as Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, on retrospectivity. I support all the amendments in his name to that effect. The only point I would have added would have been to read out my explanatory statement, which my noble friend Lord Kerr of Kinlochard has already done, placing particular stress on “for good reason”. If the Minister is not going to accept these amendments, I hope he can give the good reason in each case.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am puzzled by Amendment 6 and the reasons given by some of your Lordships for opposing the start date of 7 March 2023—a criticism made on grounds of retrospection. There is nothing unclear about the start date, and nothing hidden: 7 March is published as the start date for the Bill itself. It is the date of the Bill’s First Reading. I am also slightly puzzled by the desire to omit from subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 2 people who enter this country in breach of our Immigration Rules and do not come from a country in which their life and liberty are threatened.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I declare an interest as a former and retired Home Office lawyer and therefore there is a small pension that is being administered by some private company. The important point about that declaration is that when I was a Home Office lawyer in the 1990s, working on matters that included asylum, there was a moment when a particular failed asylum seeker who was removed was shot on arrival in their home country.

I make that point because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has made the detailed, forensic point so clearly, but as we move into this part of the Bill and start considering non-suspensive appeals, interim relief and what should happen to someone while there is a dispute about the safety of the place to which they are being sent, that is the story that hangs in my mind, and that is really the best contribution that I can make to the Committee’s thinking when we think about non-suspensive and suspensive appeals, and when we think in due course about my own group of amendments, which is about interim relief from domestic courts and international courts.

To facilitate the swift progress of the Committee I will do something that seems counterintuitive. The Government Chief Whip, who is returning to her place, gave us some very good advice about the Committee not liking reading. Which day was that on exactly? Was it Wednesday or Thursday? Was it this year or last year? I understand that point but this is not a filibuster; this is a very short, pithy quote from the JCHR report, which makes the point better than I could about what is wrong with the particular provisions dealt with in this group.

Noble Lords will find the quote on page 105 of the blockbuster JCHR report, which we will not all be able to read in its totality. Paragraph 333 says:

“Making human rights claims ‘non-suspensive’”—


non-suspensive means that you can appeal from the place you say are not safe in; it is perhaps not the place you say you will be shot but the place you might be sent to where you will be shot or otherwise persecuted—

“can only be consistent with our human rights obligations if pursuing those claims from the destination state is viable”.

This is from the JCHR, which is an all-party committee of both Houses. It continues:

“We are concerned that this has not been established for the states deemed safe for removals”.


That was one of the many excellent points made by the noble and learned Lord. It goes on:

“The threshold required to establish a suspensive claim based on serious harm under the Bill, and the requirement for ‘compelling evidence’ to support it”—


for those desperate refugees—

“puts at risk of removal those who have genuine human rights reasons why they should not be removed. Furthermore, allowing the Secretary of State to redefine ‘serious and irreversible harm’ by regulations opens up the possibility of increasing disparity between the protections against refoulement in domestic law and those to which the UK is committed in international law, including”—

the Minister’s favourite—

“the ECHR. We urge the Government to reconsider its decision to make human rights claims non-suspensive, and the extremely high threshold imposed to establish serious harm suspensive claims. The meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ should not be open to amendment by regulations. Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill”.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 101, 110 and 113. Two of these amendments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has added his name, are about the meaning of words. They are words to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, drew attention in her opening remarks on this group.

Amendment 101 directs attention to the definition in Clause 38(3) of the serious harm condition. The Bill says that this requirement will be satisfied if the person faces a

“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed from the United Kingdom … to the country … specified in the third country removal notice”.

Amendment 113 directs attention to the requirement in Clause 41(5) that a serious harm suspensive claim must

“contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met in relation to the person”

making the claim. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for drawing our attention to the reference in the JCHR report to the word “compelling” and its consequences.

So far as

“real, imminent and foreseeable risk”

is concerned, we suggest that that phraseology is unnecessarily complex. If a risk is imminent and foreseeable then one would say it must be a real risk and not a hypothetical one. Conversely, if the risk is real then it would follow that that is because it is imminent and foreseeable. These words are unnecessarily complex. It would be better, we suggest, to delete the words “imminent and foreseeable” or, alternatively, delete the word “real”. The real question is whether the word “real” adds anything if the other two words are satisfied.

As for the word “compelling”, there is an important question in addition to the fundamental point raised in the JCHR report as to what exactly “compelling”, in Clause 41(5), is dealing with. Clause 41(5) is telling the asylum seeker what his or her claim must contain. There are various requirements set out, and the first is that it

“must … contain compelling evidence that the serious harm condition is met”.

The first question is who is to judge that the evidence in that claim is compelling? The clause begins by telling us that the Secretary of State must consider the claim, before the end of the decision period, and make one of the following decisions:

“that the serious harm condition is met … or … that the serious harm condition is not met”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes an entirely fair point. In those cases, of course, it would be an imminent feature. As she points out, in those circumstances that is something the courts would be able to have regard to.

The inclusion of “imminent and foreseeable” is intended to prevent the courts from considering risks that are dependent on a series of hypothetical events before the harm might occur. That is the reason, as I understand it, that “imminent” features in the European Court of Human Rights practice direction on interim measures. We cannot allow illegal entrants to be able to thwart their removal based on an unknown risk that cannot be foreseen and may not even arise for many months or years, if at all.

Amendments 102, 103, 104, 109, 111 and 112 would remove the requirement for the risk of harm to be irreversible. These amendments would significantly lower the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim to succeed and undermine the purpose of the Bill to deter illegal entry to the UK. Again, I point out with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that

“a real risk of serious and irreversible harm”

is the test applied by the Strasbourg court when considering applications for Rule 39 interim measures, as he alluded to during his speech.

Amendments 105, 106 and 107 would remove specific examples of harm, relevant to the availability of healthcare and medical treatment in a third country—a passage that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, drew the attention of the Committee to—in circumstances that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm. There is existing case law that indicates that claims based on harm resulting from differing standards of healthcare fall short of the Article 3 threshold. It is simply unjustifiable for those who enter this country illegally to be able to remain here indefinitely and have unlimited access to our healthcare systems solely on the basis that they may not receive the same level of medical treatment in the country or territory they are rightly removed to.

For these reasons, Clause 38 makes it clear that a serious harm suspensive claim based on a risk of harm relating to differing standards of healthcare cannot succeed and, as a result, will not prevent that person’s removal to the safe third country. Clause 38 also makes it clear that a claim based on pain or distress resulting from a lack of medical treatment is unlikely to succeed. By including specific examples of harm that do not or are unlikely to constitute serious and irreversible harm in Clause 38, it is ensured that the courts take a consistent approach in their consideration of the risk of serious and irreversible harm and go no further than intended.

The Bill provides a fast-track process for the consideration of a claim which may temporarily suspend a person’s removal from the UK. Clauses 41 and 42, as the Committee has noted, set out the procedure and timescale for making a suspensive claim and the timescale for a decision to be made on a suspensive claim.

Amendment 113 would remove the requirement for a serious harm suspensive claim to include compelling evidence of the risk of serious harm that a person would face if removed to a third country, as noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Reducing the evidential burden in this way risks the process being abused through spurious and unmeritorious claims, similar to those that we have seen in other immigration applications. Evidence that is compelling is defined as that which is reliable, substantial and material to a person’s claim. I suggest that this is a reasonable requirement and necessary to ensure that the suspensive claims process is not open to abuse.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out an explanation of the word “compelling”. He used three adjectives and my impression is that that explanation is intelligible; it is not quite as alarming as “compelling”. Would it not be better to substitute the three words that he quoted for “compelling”? “Compelling” could be read as setting a very high standard indeed, which I do not think the three adjectives that he mentioned do.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am grateful for that suggestion from the noble and learned Lord. If I may, I will take a moment to reflect on that and will revert to him in relation to it.

Amendments 114 and 115 would significantly increase the timescales for making and deciding a serious harm suspensive claim, undermining the fast-track process that we have created in the Bill and our ability swiftly to remove illegal entrants. Where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to do so, it will be possible to extend both the claim period and the decision period. Legal aid will be available to assist a person in receipt of a removal notice in making a suspensive claim. With these safeguards, I suggest to the Committee that it is reasonable to expect a person to bring a suspensive claim within the time periods set out in the Bill. I hope that that addresses the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.

The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that illegal entrants are removed as quickly as possible. Extending the decision and claim periods to a total of 60 days for all cases increases the risk that immigration bail would be granted by the First-tier Tribunal and, where bail is granted, that a person would disappear into the community in order to frustrate their removal. The use of detention is therefore necessary to make sure that they are successfully removed from the UK, and our ability to detain a person is dependent on any suspensive claim being both considered and decided quickly. The timeframes outlined in the Bill send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the regulation-making power in Clause 39 should be removed from the Bill. We are considering that committee’s recommendations and will respond before Report stage. I would, however, comment that the Delegated Powers Committee did not comment on this power.

The amendments put forward would undermine the suspensive claims procedure and the timeframes outlined in the Bill, where what this Government need to do is send a clear message that if you arrive in the UK illegally you will be swiftly removed. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I think that goes back to the point I was making a moment ago. With the greatest respect—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is going to intervene; I will give way if he wants to do so, of course.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It strikes me, in reading this clause, that it proceeds on the basis that the UK is bound by the decision. I greatly respect the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, has given us—I am very much in sympathy with it—but, like it or not, the Government’s position has been that it is binding. That is why the clause is so carefully drafted.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

On that, I entirely agree: the clause is very carefully drafted. The Government’s position—as I understand it and I will stop in a moment so we can actually hear from the person we want to hear from, the Minister—is first that they wish to, and will always, abide by international law. Secondly, it gives the Minister a discretion in some circumstances not to abide by Rule 39 orders. It seems to me that if one puts those together the Government’s position has to be that there are at least some circumstances in which you do not abide by a Rule 39 order without breaching international law; otherwise, the two propositions which I set out cannot be put together.

I hope that is an answer to the noble and learned Lord’s question. I am not sure whether the smile indicates it is or is not—

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I think we really have to hear from the Minister, frankly. The clause does set out the various objections and by our jurisprudence the procedures are very defective and I can well understand why one is very uneasy about the whole structure of the rule. The Minister really has to explain the Government’s position and I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that that question needs to be answered.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

In which case, I will give one final statement before I finish. On this we all agree—the answer to this issue, I suggest, lies ultimately in Reykjavik. The answer lies in the engagement between this Government and other Governments with the Strasbourg court to improve the jurisprudence, to set the jurisdiction on a proper footing and to improve the procedures. In that way, for those of us—and I include myself—who want this country to remain part of the convention and play a part in its jurisprudence, that is surely the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 123 and 140, following on the points made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. Amendment 123 in the name of my noble friend Lord Anderson, and to which I have added my name, is directed to the provision about judicial review in Clause 55(5), to which the right reverend Prelate drew our attention. His amendments ask for subsections (2) and (4) to be taken out, while this amendment asks for subsection (5) to be taken out, so I am building on the very impressive speech he made earlier.

The provision we seek to have removed states that a court “may quash the decision” relating to a person’s age only on the basis that it was wrong in law, not because

“the court considers the decision … wrong as a matter of fact”.

That is a very considerable restriction. As the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report on the Bill, errors are normally made in this context,

“not because of an error as to the definition of ‘a child’”,

which should be an issue of law, but

“because of problems with evidence to prove that an individual is under 18”.

Indeed, it is very hard to think of any error of law, in the proper sense of that phrase, that might arise in the context of age assessment. The effect of this restriction is to exclude judicial review, even in a case where there is an error of fact which no reasonable decision-taker, taking reasonable care, would have made. That is quite an extraordinary situation to be created by a provision in a Bill of this kind.

The report of the JCHR, which has been referred to often in these debates, says:

“Given errors of fact are highly likely when conducting age assessments based on subjective judgment, this is extremely concerning and gives carte blanche to Home Office errors”.


Without elaborating on that point—instead, I endorse all the points made by the right reverend Prelate—we suggest, in this amendment, that the restriction in Clause 55(5) is unreasonable, given the nature of the assessments that have been made; therefore, it should simply be deleted from the Bill.

While Amendment 123 is about something to be taken out from the Bill, Amendment 140 raises a point referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. It is about the power in Clause 56(1) to make regulations about the effect of a decision by a person

“not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of”

that person’s

“age assessment … where there are no reasonable grounds for”

that decision. The scope of the power, as explained in Clause 56(2), extends to setting out the circumstances in which civil legal services—in other words, civil legal aid—is not to be available to that person, and the person

“is to be treated as if the decision-maker had decided that”

the person

“was over the age of 18”.

It is significant that the clause does not go so far as to say, without qualification, that, if there are no reasonable grounds for the person’s decision not to consent, the person is to be treated simply as over the age of 18. The approach, which I suppose is to be commended, is to say that it all depends on the circumstances—that is, the purpose of the regulation which will be designed to set out what those circumstances are. Nevertheless, the exercise of this power has serious consequences for the person in respect of whom the power is to be exercised, as the Constitution Committee pointed out in its report.

At present, this power to make regulations is subject to the negative procedure, which we suggest is not appropriate, given the nature of the power being referred to. So our amendment seeks to add regulations made under this power to the list of regulations in Clause 63(4) that

“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.

Given the wide scope of this power and the lack of definition of how it will be exercised, we suggest that it is entirely appropriate for it to be added to that list and not subject to the negative procedure. Those are the reasons that the Constitution Committee wishes to put forward, and I give them in support of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

[Baroness Neuberger (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for what they said—they said most of what I wanted to say. I declare an interest as chair of University College Hospital’s foundation trust and the Whittington Hospital NHS trust, because it is relevant to what I will say.

When we debated, rather later than this, the Nationality and Borders Bill in February 2022, as the right reverend Prelate observed, we debated something that allowed the Government to introduce regulations that specified scientific methods that could be used to assess age, including examining or measuring parts of a person’s body and analysing saliva, cell or other samples and the DNA within them. As we heard, the use of scientific methods to assess age has long been the subject of debate, and professional medical bodies have been unequivocal in rejecting the use of dental X-rays, bone age and genital examination as extremely imprecise as methods for assessing age, quite apart from being singularly unpleasant. I have not yet met a health professional who thinks that we should use these methods to assess the age of children or young people.

Yet the legislation went ahead and is now being strengthened, and young people who do not consent will be assumed to be adults, which is really worrying for all sorts of reasons already stated in this House. But, of course, it also undermines the fundamental premise that people have to be able to give free consent to any medical procedure or examination and should not be pressured into undergoing them. In the way that these clauses, and this particular clause, are drafted, there is no way in which these young people are not being pressured into undergoing these examinations and procedures. We should take this very seriously because almost every medical and healthcare body would say that this is unethical.

We debated much of this only 15 months ago. Back then, I said that there was wide concern about age assessments among the various voluntary and statutory agencies concerned with young asylum seekers and among many medical, dental and scientific bodies. But, as I said last week, I chair a small family charity in memory of my parents that provides opportunities for education for young asylum seekers, most of whom are slightly older than the group we are discussing here—but a few have not been. Without exception, they all say that the worst of all this is not only the procedures they are being asked to undergo but the fact that they are not believed. It is almost as if there is an assumption that they are not telling the truth.

It is clear that the use of some of these procedures is unethical—certainly if it is not for the young person’s benefit. Since that is the case, can the Minister tell the Committee why a young person or child who does not give consent to these procedures should always be disbelieved, and why they should be regarded as an adult if they do not consent? As a parliamentary body, we have to look at this really seriously. If we do not trust young people at all to tell us the truth, we are making a terrible assumption about those who come to this country, often traumatised and very vulnerable, looking for a better future.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 4, in my name. I appreciate the need to move as fast as possible and I shall be as short as I can. This amendment, which appeared in Committee and is renewed today, would require the Secretary of State to provide

“guidance as to how the provisions of this Act are to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights”.

The amendment follows a recommendation by the Constitution Committee prompted by the provisions in Clause 1(3), which tells us that

“so far as it is possible to do so, … this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1)”.

Clause 1(5), the crucial subsection, states:

“Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998”—


which gives the function of deciding what the convention rights mean for the courts—

“does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act”.

The Committee said that the Government’s position requires explanation. Of course, there are more fundamental objections to these provisions, which are the subject particularly of Amendment 5. I do not want anything I may say in the next few minutes to be taken as undermining in any way the point made by the noble Baroness in favour of her amendment, but the fact remains that the Government’s position on how these provisions are going to work needs to be explained, and no sufficient explanation has been given. Clause 1(5), after all, is a major incursion into the way the convention rights are currently protected. This is a matter of particular concern given the extent to which the Bill affects so many people, including children and the victims of modern slavery, who are extremely vulnerable to government action. As I said last time, they are being sent into a desperate kind of no man’s land where the ordinary protections we enjoy are being denied them.

In replying to this amendment in Committee, the Minister said that my amendment was at odds with Section 6 of the Human Rights Act which, as he put it,

“should be our guiding light here; it affords the necessary clarity for those seeking to give effect to the provisions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 24/5/23; col. 921.]

I simply did not understand that response and I still do not; indeed, I think it makes the case for guidance of the kind I am talking about all the more strongly. Without going into details, Section 6(1) requires public authorities to act compatibly with the convention rights, while Section 6(2) disapplies it in two circumstances. Yet the fact that the Minister is contemplating disapplication of Section 6(1) suggests to me that he is contemplating that there will be breaches of convention rights flowing from the provisions of the Bill. That seems quite inconsistent with the ECHR memorandum, which says that the clauses it identifies as engaging the convention rights are capable of being applied compatibly.

I am not going to enlarge any further, but it seems to me that that explanation does not make any sense; it is contradictory to the memorandum and it is no answer to the point I was seeking to raise. The fundamental point takes me back to Amendment 5: the short answer to the difficulty created by that explanation is to vote in favour of Amendment 5, which I will do.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment relates to serious harm suspensive claims, and it is important because the Government intend that suspensive claims are the only way that removal notices can be challenged. The point I have been concerned with from the beginning is the position of people who are served with a removal notice in respect of a country in which they have a well-founded fear of persecution if removed there, and they would fall within Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention. In other words, vis-à-vis that country, they would be regarded as refugees. Do they have to show in addition, as required by Clause 38(3),

“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and”—

this is the critical word—“irreversible harm” to succeed on a serious harm suspensive claim? That would be not only novel but against all principle, and the meaning, intent and wording of the refugee convention.

The point has been illustrated—I have tried to illustrate it, and the Government have taken it up—in the particular case of LGBTQ+ claimants. The decision in the case of HJ (Iran) and HG (Cameroon) was that, in order to qualify as a refugee under the convention, it is sufficient that, if they would wish to live openly as LGBTQ, they would face persecution, even if they would not suffer such persecution if they acted discreetly. The question was, if they or somebody from that community were served with a removal notice and it were to a place where members of that particular social group, within the meaning of the convention, would have reasonable fear of persecution, would they have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm, and within a specified period? I urge your Lordships to accept that that would be entirely wrong.

Throughout this debate on the Bill, my understanding has been that the Minister has said that, yes, such a group would have to show in addition that they would suffer irreversible harm. That seems inconsistent with Clause 38(4)(b), which states:

“The following are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of this Act … (b) persecution falling within … Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention … where P”—


the refugee—

“is not able to avail themselves of protection from that persecution”.

My heart therefore leapt with joy last Wednesday when I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who stood in as Minister, say:

“The point I am making is that the serious harm suspensive claim in connection with Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of such a suspensive claim.”—[Official Report, 28/6/23; col. 767.]


However, I received a letter sent at 2pm this afternoon from the Minister which seemed to indicate that he was still insisting that, in addition, one would have to show irreversible harm. All I wish to receive from the Minister to avoid a vote on this is an assurance that, where it is clear that there would be persecution of a recognised category within the convention regarding the country specified in the removal notice, that fact alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a serious harm suspensive claim, and that the principle laid down in HJ (Iran) regarding LGBTQ people will continue to apply.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I will speak first to Amendment 131, which would survive even if the amendment to which my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton has spoken were carried and Clause 38 rewritten.

I am seeking to make a very simple point: the power in Clause 39 to

“by regulations amend section 38 to make provision about the meaning of ‘serious and irreversible harm’ for the purposes of this Act”

is unqualified and wide enough to enable the Secretary of State to remove some of the instances of serious harm set out in Clause 38 as it is or as it may be amended. The examples of serious harm given there are absolutely obvious, and they are indeed very serious. It would be a great misfortune if, by some misadventure, the Secretary of State were to remove one or other example from that list for some reason. I would have thought that the Minister could accept the amendment as a sensible qualification of the otherwise unqualified power in Clause 39. I am simply repeating a point I made in Committee, but it is rather important to have clarity on this. The Minister can give an assurance—no doubt he will—that there is no intention to remove examples from Clause 38, but that is not really good enough. It needs to be set out in terms in Clause 39.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I was about to sit down, but I will note that. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, which very much follow the points raised by the right reverend Prelate.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has been pointing out, there is a problem about Clause 56(5), to which the right reverend Prelate’s amendment draws attention. As it stands, the subsection restricts the grounds of review to errors of law only. My Amendment 158A seeks to open up the scope for review, following up on a recommendation from the Constitution Committee which pointed out, as the right reverend Prelate has, that the opportunities for error on grounds of fact in this situation are very many. Indeed, the information on which the committee was proceeding was that usually it is on errors of fact that these decisions go wrong.

Amendment 158A rewrites subsection (5) to say that review is available when the decision was either

“wrong in law, or … proceeded on information about the person’s age which was incomplete, misleading or otherwise so seriously misinformed that no reasonable decision-maker would have relied on it”.

I think that the right reverend Prelate would welcome my amendment because it is trying to achieve what he is achieving. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I am worried that, if subsection (5) remains as it is, it will greatly restrict the opportunity for review on grounds of errors of fact.

Although I do not propose to put my amendment to a vote, can the Minister consider very carefully whether the grounds for review that I am suggesting are available? They come very close to what lawyers describe as “Wednesbury unreasonableness”. I do not know whether the Minister would accept that what I have in my formulation would be available as a ground of review that the decision was wrong in law anyway because it was so defective, but it is a very important qualification on the absolute precision which subsection (5), as it presently stands, lays down. Without elaborating further, I seek the Minister’s view on what I am proposing. It is important to know exactly to where the phrase “wrong in law” extends.

My Amendment 168AA, which was also discussed in Committee that evening at 1.30 am, is a quite different one, again promoted by a recommendation of the Constitution Committee. It seeks to ask that the power to make regulations under Clause 57(1) regarding the effect of a person’s decision

“not to consent to the use of a specified … method for the purposes of an age assessment … where there are no reasonable grounds”

for doing so should be moved from the position where it is subject to the negative procedure, so that it is subject to the affirmative procedure.

The regulation power in Clause 57(1) does not take the blunt approach of saying that, if somebody refuses to consent, then he should simply be treated as being over the age of 18. Commendably, the clause is phrased as having regard to the circumstances. One can well understand that there could be a variety of circumstances in which a person withholds consent. The problem with leaving the provision as it stands to the negative procedure is that there is no opportunity for considering whether the circumstances are ones that we would wish to accept. Amendment 168AA seeks to add the regulation-making power under Clause 57(1) to the list in Clause 64(4) of those regulations which are to be laid in draft and approved by resolution of each House.

Given the wide scope of the power in Clause 57(1) and its importance to the individual, I suggest that this is a reasonable amendment to make. Although it was not possible for the matter to be debated very fully in Committee at 1.30 am, I hope that the Minister can enlarge on his reply. He replied very briefly then. Before another noble Lord intervened to attract his attention elsewhere, he said that he had noted my amendment and that the Government would “respond before Report stage”. I have had no response so far. Can the Minister consider more carefully my proposal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As my noble friend well knows, under a conventional judicial review challenge, the court will review the process of the decision and whether the decisions made were appropriate, applying the conventional judicial review tests, not balancing the evidence and coming to its own conclusion on the facts. The Government’s position is that it is appropriate for those tasked with assessing a person’s age to be entrusted with that responsibility, subject to review on judicial review principles. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, this includes a test of Wednesbury unreasonableness—a decision so unreasonable that no properly directed tribunal could have reached it.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

I want to be absolutely clear: is the Minister accepting my amendment? I have drafted it as carefully as I can to bring it within the scope of that kind of challenge.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am coming to the noble and learned Lord’s amendment and will answer that question in a second.

We consider that these provisions are entirely necessary to safeguard genuine children and guard against those who seek to game the system by purporting to be adults. It follows that I am afraid I cannot support Amendments 156A and 158A. However, I assure my noble friend Lord Hailsham that age assessments will, as now, be undertaken in a careful and professional manner. This is not a perfunctory exercise, and it is in everyone’s interests that we get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

158A: Clause 56, page 58, line 37, leave out from “tribunal” to the end of line 3 on page 59 and insert “may grant relief only on the basis that the decision—
(a) was wrong in law, or(b) proceeded on information about the person’s age which was incomplete, misleading or otherwise so seriously misinformed that no reasonable decision-maker would have relied on it.”

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord German, said, my amendment is really part of a package, and it is very important that the formula which I have set out in it should be put on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I do not know whether I should declare an interest as a pseudo-lawyer, or perhaps as Mickey Mouse. I am not entirely convinced that framing the debate in that way is appropriate.

I have a number of things to say. First, the fact that Motion A1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has been rephrased as it has been, shows that those of us who argued that the previous version was substantive, and not interpretative, were right. However, the Motion as redrafted is also improper because it does two things—here I again respectfully part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He read the Motion but omitted words in its second line. Let us have a look at what it actually says:

“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the intention that its provisions”—


that refers to the provisions in the Bill—

“and any act and omissions made as a result, are intended to comply”.

Even now, it is not properly an interpretative provision, because it does not just apply to interpreting the words; it is also said to apply to any acts and omissions made under the Act, as it will become. That still has substantive consequences, and the effect is still—this time in an evening rather than in an afternoon—that we are effectively incorporating these treaties into our domestic law.

That is why the words

“and any acts and omissions made as a result”

are still objectionable, but the rest of it, while maybe not objectionable, is unnecessary. As I mentioned on Report, the law of this country has always been that, in the absence of express words to the contrary, all statutes are presumed to be in accordance with our international obligations. That was most recently set out by Lord Dyson, speaking for the Supreme Court in the Assange case, when he said that

“there is no doubt that there is a ‘strong presumption’ in favour of interpreting an English statute in a way which does not place the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations”.

The fact that we now have to go through the contortions of trying to fit this reformulated amendment into interpretation when it still has substantive consequences shows that this is a road down which we should not be going at all. In so far as the intention is that legislation should be interpreted in line with our international commitments, that is already part of the law. In so far as it says that

“any acts and omissions made as a result”

of this Bill are to be so interpreted, that has substantive consequences.

I respectfully suggest that those points are not those of a pseudo-lawyer, nor are they Mickey Mouse points. If I may finish where I began, it is somewhat unfortunate that that is how they are being described.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I have the misfortune to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I support entirely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. The key words in this reformulated amendment are “In interpreting this Act” and “regard”. It would not write these conventions into our law, as the previous amendment was in danger of doing. This a pure interpretation provision, and it is entirely consistent with the way the courts approach these various conventions. The assumption is that the United Kingdom, having signed up to the conventions, will respect them in the formulation of its provisions in our domestic law. The court applies that principle in finding a meaning of the words before it in statutory instruments and in primary legislation. This is entirely in accordance with the way the courts approach the matter. The key words are, “In interpreting this Act”, and “regard”. It is not binding; it is just that regard will be had. That is the way the provision should read. I support the amendment because it is entirely orthodox and consistent with principle.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1 and the various provisions that follow from it. Without getting into the legal arguments that have just been articulated by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, I support the fact that the key words are the first few words, in particular to try to deal with the criticism that was made of the previous amendment.

The only point I would add is that it is important for us to have something like this in the Bill given the criticism, concern and questions that have been raised about the Bill by many well-respected international organisations, bodies and individuals. We all expect something to be done about the challenge that we face, but we want it done in a way which enhances our international reputation and conforms to the various international treaties and our responsibilities. That is why Motion A1 is particularly important and should be supported.